PLANNING and HIGHWAYS REGULATORY COMMITTEE Date

Committee: PLANNING AND HIGHWAYS REGULATORY COMMITTEE

Date: MONDAY, 13 DECEMBER 2010

Venue: LANCASTER TOWN HALL

Time: 10.30 A.M.

A G E N D A

1 Apologies for Absence

2 Minutes of the Meeting held on 15 November 2010 (previously circulated)

3 Items of Urgent Business authorised by the Chairman

4 Declarations of Interest

Planning Applications for Decision

Community Safety Implications

In preparing the reports for this agenda, regard has been paid to the implications of the proposed developments on Community Safety issues. Where it is considered the proposed development has particular implications for Community Safety, this issue is fully considered within the main body of the report on that specific application.

Category A Applications

Applications to be dealt with by the District Council without formal consultation with the County Council.

5 A5 10/00456/CU Court View House, Aalborg Place, Duke's (Pages 1 - 5) Lancaster Ward

Change of use of ground floor and first floor to further education college for EMBA College

6 A6 10/00610/FUL The Old Vicarage Retirement Upper Lune (Pages 6 - Home, 56 Main Street, Hornby Valley 23) Ward Erection of an extension to provide 15 new bedrooms, change of access and erection of new boundary wall for Forrester Retirement Home

7 A7 10/00611/LB The Old Vicarage Retirement Upper Lune (Pages 24 - Home, 56 Main Street, Hornby Valley 31) Ward Listed building consent for the erection of an extension to provide 15 new bedrooms, change of access and erection of new boundary wall for Forrester Retirement Home

8 A8 10/01012/VCN Elms Hotel, Elms Road, Bare Ward (Pages 32 - Morecambe 35)

Variation of condition 2 on application 09/00158/FUL to alter internal floor layout for Hay Carr Estates

9 A9 10/00820/FUL Middleton & Overton Sea Overton (Pages 36 - Defences, First Terrace, Ward 42) Sunderland Point

Various tidal flood protection works including earth embankments, erection of concrete wall and repair and raising existing wall for Sunderland Point Community Association

10 A10 10/00858/RCN Capernwray Diving Centre, Kellet Ward (Pages 43 - Capernwray Road, Capernwray 50)

Removal of condition no 3 on application 04/00877/OUT relating to accommodation of units for Ms Carol Hack

11 A11 10/01118/FUL Wenning House, Forge Lane, Halton- (Pages 51 - Halton with- 54) Aughton Ward Installation of approximately 120 solar panels to south and west roof for Ms Anne Chapman

12 A12 10/00949/RENU Slynedales, Lancaster Road, Slyne-with- (Pages 55 - Slyne Hest Ward 59)

Renewal of planning application 07/01144/FUL for the proposed demolition of single storey flat roofed extension and replacement with 3 storey pitched roof extension, erection of an Arts and Crafts studio and change of use of land to form new car parking area for

Cancercare

13 A13 10/01122/CU Green Dragon Hotel, Main Road, Ellel Ward (Pages 60 - Galgate 66)

Change of use of part of the ground floor to self contained flat and replacement of existing windows throughout with uPVC windows for Mr Ismeal Thagia

Category D Applications

Applications for development by a District Council

14 A14 10/01100/DPA Assembly Rooms, King Street, Duke's (Pages 67 - Lancaster Ward 69)

Emergency strengthening works to south gable involving internal restraint bars within floor construction and anchor plates on wall face of gable for Mr John Campbell

15 A15 10/00982/DPA Town Hall, Dalton Square, Duke's (Pages 70 - Lancaster Ward 72)

Listed building application for repointing works and other works for Lancaster City Council

16 A16 10/00847/DPA Town Hall, Marine Road East, Poulton (Pages 73 - Morecambe Ward 75)

Listed building application for works to roof including renewal of roof lights for Lancaster City Council

17 A17 10/00965/DPA Town Hall, Marine Road East, Poulton (Pages 76 - Morecambe Ward 78)

Listed building application for internal remodelling of part ground and first floor and full electrical rewire and installation of automatic fire detection for Lancaster City Council

18 Planning Application Validation (Pages 79 - Guide 113)

Report of the Head of Regeneration and Planning

19 Delegated Planning Decisions (Pages 114 - 118)

ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS

(i) Membership

Councillors Eileen Blamire (Chairman), Joyce Pritchard (Vice-Chairman), Keith Budden, Anne Chapman, Chris Coates, John Day, Roger Dennison, Sheila Denwood, Mike Greenall, Emily Heath, Helen Helme, Tony Johnson, Andrew Kay, Geoff Marsland, Robert Redfern, Bob Roe, Sylvia Rogerson, Roger Sherlock, Peter Williamson and Paul Woodruff

(ii) Substitute Membership

Councillors Jon Barry (Substitute), Ken Brown (Substitute), Abbott Bryning (Substitute), John Gilbert (Substitute), Janice Hanson (Substitute), Ian McCulloch (Substitute), Keith Sowden (Substitute), Peter Robinson (Substitute), Joyce Taylor (Substitute) and Malcolm Thomas (Substitute)

(iii) Queries regarding this Agenda

Please contact Jane Glenton, Democratic Services - 01524 582068 - [email protected].

(iv) Changes to Membership, substitutions or apologies

Please contact Members’ Secretary, telephone 582170, or alternatively email [email protected].

MARK CULLINAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, TOWN HALL, DALTON SQUARE, LANCASTER, LA1 1PJ

Published on 2nd December 2010. Page 1 Agenda Item Committee Date AgendaApplication Item Number 5

A05 13 December 2010 10/00456/CU

Application Site Proposal

Court View House Change of use of ground floor and first floor to further Aalborg Place education college Lancaster Lancashire

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

EMBA College MCK Associates Ltd

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

5 July 2010 Resolving transport related issues

Case Officer Mr Andrew Drummond

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Refusal

This application was previously reported to the Planning Committee on 20 September 2010, but a decision was deferred to allow:

(1) The Case Officer to liaise with the applicant over the contribution to the sustainable travel contribution.

(2) The Case Officer to clarify whether the 4 existing on-site spaces were mobility spaces and, if not, where will the mobility-impaired park?

(3) The Case Officer to encourage the College to incorporate a public café bar on the ground floor element, thus reducing the scale of their operation on the first floor (if still viable) to lessen the impact upon residents.

(4) The local Residents’ Association to be involved in the discussions.

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 The application site is situated on the east side of Lancaster city centre between the Magistrate’s Court and Lancaster Canal. Vehicular and main pedestrian access to the site is gained from Quarry Road.

The property is known as Court View House. It forms part of the Aalborg Place scheme along with Mill View House, developed by Persimmon. It is predominantly a residential development.

1.2 The site falls within an area designated as Lancaster Central Parking Area and a Housing Opportunity Site. The canal forms a County Biological Heritage Site.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The application seeks planning permission to change the use of the vacant ground and first floor space that currently has permission to be used as an office and restaurant. It is proposed to use the space for educational purposes (D1 use) with a lecture room, seminar rooms, a library, a common Page 2 room, a number of offices, a meeting room, 2 reception areas and toilet facilities. .

2.2 The ground floor (A3 restaurant/café) space measures 350 sq.m with the first floor (B1 office) space providing a further 570 sq.m. It is proposed to use all 920 sq.m of this combined space for the purposes set out in 2.1 above.

2.3 The site has vehicular and pedestrian access from Aalborg Place, off Quarry Road. The commercial floorspace has been allocated 4 car parking spaces within the building, though there are nearby short term car parks at Thurnham Street and Bulk Street. The nearest bus stops are on Common Garden Street and South Road, with the train station a 5-10 minute walk away across the city centre.

3.0 Site History

3.1 A number of relevant applications relating to this site have previously been received by the Local Planning Authority. These include:

Application Number Proposal Decision 02/00848/FUL Erection of 139 apartments, public house/cafe (A3/A4 Permitted use), office accommodation (B1 use) and associated parking

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory and internal consultees:

Consultees Response County Highways The site is within the city centre Controlled Parking Zone and that on street parking in the immediate vicinity of the site is adequately controlled. It is noted that only 4 spaces within the existing car park are allocated for the proposed use, although the application does not go into any detail as to how this is enforced. On the face of it the impact of traffic and parking in and around Aalborg Place would therefore not be significant. However, the Highway Authority (HA) is concerned about the proximity of the site to the relatively nearby Moorlands residential area, which is already under pressure from commuter parking. This is only a relatively short walk from Aalborg Place and would be likely to attract parking by staff and students who do not choose to travel by other modes and seek to avoid the charges associated with the car parks in the area. The application states up to 175 students may be on site at any given time and it is the Highway Authority’s view that this could add significantly to parking demand in the Moorlands area, further adding to the problems of the residents in that zone. Whilst it is noted that a Travel Plan has been submitted by the applicant to promote alternative modes of transport, it does not alleviate the HA's concerns. However, the solution identified is the introduction of a "residents only" parking scheme in the residential area of Moorlands, and therefore the HA has requested a contribution of £10,000 towards this measure. If the applicant is unwilling to fund this measure, the Highway Authority recommends that the application is refused on the grounds that the scheme is likely to increase demand for on street parking in the Moorgate area, thereby exacerbating an existing problem to the detriment of the safety and convenience of the residents of that area.

Access Officer In general the proposed seems to comply with Approved Document M of the Building Regulations, but the Officer provides the applicant a list of advisory points to improve accessibility.

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 18 pieces of correspondence have been received objecting to the proposal. The reasons given include:

Page 3 • increased noise from loitering students, especially at night due to evening lectures • pollution from students smoking in the courtyard area adjacent to residential properties • litter problem would result • traffic congestion and parking problems • education is an inappropriate use – apartments sold with the understanding that the space would be used as offices and a restaurant • security concerns with the number of people coming and going • over-provision of educational facilities in and around the city • concerns regarding waste management - improper use of bins • the college would devalue the adjacent apartments

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 National Planning Policy Statements (PPS) and Guidance Notes (PPG)

PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) - provides generic advice for all new built development. Sites should be capable of optimising the full site boundary and should deliver an appropriate mix of uses, green and other public spaces, safe and accessible environments and visually pleasing architecture. The prudent use of natural resources and assets, and the encouragement of sustainable modes of transport are important components of this advice. This advice is echoed in PPG13 - Transport. A high level of protection should be given to most valued townscapes and landscapes.

6.2 Lancaster District Local Plan - adopted April 2004 (saved policies)

Policy T9 (Providing for Buses in New Developments) - seeks to locate development, which will significantly increase the demand for travel as close as possible to existing or proposed bus services (i.e. within a 5 minute walk or 400m).

Policy T17 (Travel Plans) - requirement to produce a Travel Plan for development likely to generate large numbers of daily journeys.

Policy T26 and T27 (Footpaths and Cycleways) - Requirements to include cycle and pedestrian links for new schemes.

Policy R21 (Access for People with Disabilities) - requires disabled access provision.

6.3 Lancaster District Core Strategy - adopted July 2008

Policy SC1 (Sustainable Development) - development should be located in an area where it is convenient to walk, cycle or travel by public transport between homes, workplaces, shops and other facilities, must not result in unacceptable flood risk or drainage problems, does not have a significant adverse impact on a site of nature conservation or archaeological importance, uses energy efficient design and construction practices, incorporates renewable energy technologies, creates publicly accessible open space, and is compatible with the character of the surrounding landscape.

Policy E2 (Transportation Measures) - reduce the need to travel by car whilst improving walking and cycling networks and providing better public transport services.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 Educational Use

The college seeking to use the vacant space would have a total enrolment of 500 students, with 150- 175 students studying at any one time. In addition, there would be a staff team of 12 (10 full time and 2 part time). The proposed hours of use are 08.30 to 18.00 on Monday to Friday.

Page 4 Locating an educational use on the edge of a city centre is appropriate. Due to the proximity of the proposed college to the existing city's facilities, such as public transport, library, cafes and shops, the students would be able to walk between the various services.

7.2 Transportation

The key problem related to this proposal relates to parking. Despite its city centre location with good transport links, the likelihood is that with up to 190 people using the premises on a daily basis during the working week, a reasonable proportion of them will still travel to the site by car. With only 4 on site car parking spaces allocated to the premises (none of which are designed as mobility spaces), this would push car users into the adjacent car parks. However, the car parks in the immediate vicinity are short term car parks with higher charges. It is therefore unlikely that students and some staff would be willing to pay for parking and would utilise the local residential streets, which already suffer from commuter parking. This is especially true in the Moorlands area, and lesser so to the Primrose area. Though the applicant has submitted a Travel Plan with the application that seeks to encourage staff and students to utilise sustainable modes of transport, County Highways has serious concerns relating to this proposal in relation to parking, and therefore recommend that a planning contribution is sought (see Section 8 below).

7.3 Noise

The concerns raised by neighbours relate predominantly to the number of people that would be using the space, especially compared to the permissible uses (office and restaurant) and the noise that they would generate. Though the movement and the congregation of students and staff would generate some noise, this should be considered with the context of background noise from a city centre location. The level of noise associated with the proposed use would be noticeable but likely to be within tolerance levels for the adjacent residential properties. Furthermore the educational use would be limited to opening hours of 08.30 to 18.00 on Monday to Friday, generally the noisiest parts of the day.

7.4 Security

Other residents were concerned about security. With large numbers of people coming and going, it is unlikely that residents would know who has a legitimate reason to be in and around the building, and who has not. Whilst this is a real concern, the same would also be true if the current permission for the restaurant use was implemented. It could also be argued that this people movement creates natural surveillance and therefore increases safety and security.

7.5 Design

In terms of design, it is proposed to use the existing building with few external changes. The alterations would be to the internal layout, with the installation of partition walls to create rooms for different uses (offices, reception area, staff facilities, lecture theatre). The only external changes relate to doors and windows where it is proposed to remove the temporary boarding and implement the previously approved scheme. Though the application site is not situated within a Conservation Area (a Heritage Asset), the City's Conservation Area boundary abuts the site. The proposal would positively affect the setting of the Heritage Asset by removing the boardings and complete the external finishes to the Aalborg Place development as per the approved drawings of the 2002 application.

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 As discussed above, with up to 190 people being on site at any one time and only 4 allocated car parking spaces, local car parks and roads will come under pressure. Though some people attending the facility will travel by other modes of transport other than car, and some travelling by car will use the nearby car parks, it is likely many will seek free parking on 'unrestricted' local roads. Many of these roads are already under pressure from commuters parking their vehicles during the working week. Though County Highways initially objected to the proposal, it is felt that on balance the application can be supported as a solution has been identified. To alleviate County's concerns a "residents only" parking scheme would need to be introduced in the residential area of Moorlands, and therefore County has requested a contribution of £10,000 towards this measure.

Page 5

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 Using the empty premises within Aalborg Place for an educational use is appropriate. It is located close to other city centre facilities, reducing the number of additional trips. However, despite the train and bus services, and the cycle routes that serve the city, the proposed college is likely to generate a number of car trips. With the nearby car parks being short-term only with higher associated charges it is very likely that some students and staff will park on-street in the neighbouring residential areas. Additional pressure will be put upon these areas, especially within the residential area of Moorlands.

County Highways has requested a commuted sum of £10,000 towards the introduction of a resident’s only parking scheme in the residential area of Moorlands to alleviate this problem. The applicant has refused to pay this sum of money, and therefore the Highway Authority has recommended that the application be refused on highway grounds.

When the Case Officer approached the agent regarding the minutes of September’s meeting, the Officer was advised that if the applicant was unwilling to pay the full or even part of the Planning Contribution, there was little point in discussing the other matters arising from the Committee meeting. As such, there is nothing to report regarding floor plans or discussions with the Local Residents Association.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission BE REFUSED for the following reason:

1. The proposal would be likely to increase demand for on street parking in the surrounding residential area, especially Moorgate, thereby exacerbating an existing problem to the detriment of the safety and convenience of the residents of that area. The application therefore is contrary to Planning Policy Guidance 13 and Core Strategy policy E2.

Human Rights Act

This recommendation has been reached after consideration of the provisions of The Human Rights Act. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the issues arising do not appear to be of such magnitude to override the responsibility of the City Council to regulate land use for the benefit of the community as a whole, in accordance with national law.

Background Papers

None

Page 6 AgendaAgenda Item Item 6 Committee Date Application Number

A6 13 December 2010 10/00610/FUL

Application Site Proposal

The Old Vicarage Retirement Home Erection of an extension to provide 15 new bedrooms, change of access and erection of new boundary wall 56 Main Street

Hornby

Lancaster

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Forrester Retirement Home JMP Architects Ltd

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

12 August 2010 Negotiation of amendments

Case Officer Mr Andrew Holden

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Approval subject to conditions

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 The application site is located within the centre of the village of Hornby. The village and the site lie within the Forest of Bowland Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the Hornby Conservation Area. The site is located within the grounds of the Old Vicarage Retirement Home, a Grade II listed building. The Grade I listed Church of St Margaret and its associated church yard lie immediately to the north of the application site.

1.2 The eastern boundary of the site is formed by a large group of trees. These are protected as ‘groups’ and as a number of individual trees including cypress trees, willow, yew, oak and horse chestnut. Immediately along side the group of tree is a grade II listed wall with 3 gates. This was formerly the entrance to Hornby Castle grounds.

1.3 The southern boundary of the site abuts the grounds of Hornby Castle and The Lodge located at the new entrance to the castle from the main road. The boundary is heavily wooded, again with protected trees. The western boundary is has a number of substantial trees many are protected including a pendulous lime close to the existing site access.

1.4 The site access lies alongside a further listed dwelling, No 58 Main Street. The entrance is swept back form the main road with curved walls. The open gateway leads into small car parking and open grassed gardens. The old vicarage is a two storey stone and slate property. A large flat roof conservatory extension wraps around the south east corner of the building.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The application is seeking to erect an extension to the eastern site of the old vicarage to provide 15 new bedrooms, communal living area and support facilities. The building is attached to the northern east end of the building at single storey. A single storey extension runs parallel to the northern boundary of the site stepping up to a two storey element with a north-south orientation on the Page 7 eastern boundary of the site. The extension will increase the number of bedroom of bedroom from 13 to 28.

2.2 The extension is designed as a contemporary modern structure with low profile roofs to both the single and two storey elements. The ‘L’ shaped footprint of the building seeks to develop the main section of accommodation away form the main building with a back drop of substantial trees. The single storey link to the original building again has a low profile roof to reduce impact on the old vicarage and neighbouring church.

2.3 The materials are proposed as zinc standing seam low profile roof. The walls of the two storey element are to be sandstone at ground floor with a stone string course detail leading to western red cedar boarding to the upper floor. The single storey element is to be glazed to the southern elevation with a mixture of large glazing panel and self coloured render walls.

2.4 Outside the building the stone boundary wall to the adjoining church is to be raised across the single storey element. To facilitate the siting of the main section of the building eight trees are to be felled with crown raising works to two further trees. The existing access to the site from Main Street is to be closed and a new curtilage to be created to 58 Main Street to provide a garden/parking area. Access to the Old Vicarage is to be gained via a new drive to be constructed through the central gateway of the listed wall with gates. The driveway will lead from the private access road within the castle grounds directly into the courtyard and car paring area of the Old Vicarage.

3.0 Site History

3.1 The site has been the subject of a number of planning application for extension to the building. Consent was granted in 1989 for the development of a two storey extension to the building and a similar footprint to that currently submitted. This consent was renewed in 1994. A single storey extension was approved in 1998 on a similar footprint to the two storey section of the current application. An application to renew this consent was withdrawn in 2003.

Application Number Proposal Decision 01/89/1147 Erection of a two storey extension Approved 94/01220/FUL Renewal of erection of a two storey extension Approved 98/00147 Erection of a single storey extension Approved 03/00608/FUL Renewal of erection of a sinlge storey extension Withdrawn

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory consultees:

Statutory Consultee Response English Heritage Initially advised that the application should be determined in line with national and local policy guidance and on the basis of the Council’s specialist conservation advice.

Following further discussion with English Heritage and a direct request for a detailed assessment of the proposed development, a detailed response was received; a full copy of the response is attached as a background paper. An extract and recommendation of their comments are set out below: -

We are mindful that the current proposals reflect closely advice that the applicant received in 2009 from both English Heritage and the Council. Having fully considered the details of the scheme and the potential impact upon a number of highly graded heritage assets, English Heritage has reached the decision that, while representing a substantial addition to The Old Vicarage, the proposed extension will not result in a level of harm either to listed structures or their settings that would require us to sustain an objection to the scheme.

We would like to suggest that additional visual evidence could be submitted to allow the Council to be certain that they have sufficient information to reach an informed Page 8 decision on the impact of the extension on the Grade I listed St Margaret’s Church. It may be helpful to direct the Council’s attention to English Heritage’s draft guidance on the setting of historic assets in terms of visual intrusion, noise and vibration. I am copying this letter to Ms S Bull, a local resident who has been in correspondence with English Heritage regarding this application.

Conservation Has had pre-application discussions including site with the agents and English Officer Heritage. The scale of the proposed development is in accordance with the guidance provided by both the LPA and English Heritage. Any new development should be of a modern design and this has been endorsed by English Heritage.

The new envelopment will affect the setting of the grade I listed building, the grade II listed former Vicarage and views within the Conservation Area. There are benefits in that the vicarage will lose an awful conservatory extension that is damaging to the appearance of the listed building. The gateway will be refurbished and will once again be a formal entrance. I am confident that the development will not adversely affect the setting of the listed buildings.

He specifically requested a low pitched roof with a metal roofing system. The adjacent grade I listed church is perpendicular gothic and this includes a near flat roof probably covered in lead sheet. He was also concerned that the development should comprise of a single storey building adjacent to the former Vicarage and that the accommodation could be a two storey building set back from the former Vicarage to retain a significant amount of the open garden space.

Following discussions as range of conditions are necessary regarding: - weathered zinc roofing with a standing seam detail; ridge eaves and verge details; the use of metal rainwater goods (location to be agreed) with a similar finish to the zinc roofing material; colour of rooflights; split-faced sandstone walling; string course detail to be agreed; sample of masonry with pointed mortar finish to be submitted; western red cedar boarding to be agreed by sample; self-coloured render to be agreed; window and door details to be agreed; spandrel panels to be agreed; new garden walls and ramp finish and paving to be agreed.

To conclude the Senior Conservation Officer has supported the architects and their design process and expects to see an exemplary development making use of high quality materials and finishes. Given the high architectural and historic significance of the setting the buildings should be of the highest quality.

County Highways Have no objections to the proposal and the following Highway Conditions should apply to approval of the application.

HW13 – Provision of vehicular turning space – as per plan HW14 - Provision of car parking areas – as per plan HW17 - Mobility (disabled) car parking space HW18 - Cycle storage – details to be agreed Environment Initially, objected to the proposed development because it was considered contrary to Agency Policy SC1 Sustainable Development & SC7 Development & Flood Risk in the Lancaster City Council Core Strategy (2003-2021) Adopted July 2008.

The proposed extension lies within Flood Zone 2, which is defined by Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25) as having a medium probability of flooding. Paragraph E9 of PPS25 requires applicants for planning permission to submit a FRA when development is proposed in such locations. In the absence of a FRA, the flood risks resulting from the proposed development are unknown. The absence of a FRA is therefore sufficient reason in itself for a refusal of planning permission. This reflects the precautionary approach to development in flood risk areas set out in paragraphs 10 and E9 of PPS25.

Following submission of a detailed flood risk assessment – they withdrew their objection to the proposed development provided that the recommendations within Page 9 section 4 of the FRA are fully implemented and that, in the absence of details regarding existing and proposed ground floor levels, any subsequent approval is conditioned to control finished floor levels.

Tree Protection The site in question is established within Hornby Conservation Area, as such trees Officer with a stem diameter of 75mm or greater when measures at 1.3m above ground level are protected in law. The applicant has identified 19 individual and groups of trees including lime, horse chestnut, oak, cherry and a number of conifers species.

Trees within the site provide an important level of greening and screening between the site use and the public realm. Many trees are visible from the public highway and as such have significant public amenity. Of course due to the density of planting many trees can only be seen within the perimeter of the site itself; however their value and contribution to the character of their locality and wider conservation area, and as a wildlife resource is significant. The development proposals identified require the removal of a number of trees.

Development proposals include the removal of a mature, pendulous lime tree (T4) adjacent to the site entrance, T14 – goat willow, T15 - cherry, G18 , 2x cypress, and G19 , 4x cypress. Pruning works have also been identified as part of the development proposals and include works to: T6 - Horse chestnut - crown raise to a height of 6m above ground level; T10 - Red oak crown clean to remove deadwood and damaged branches.

T4 is a mature, pendulous lime trees; though not a rare species it is unusual in terms of its size, and maturity and as such in my view warrants retention and protection. This tree is currently protected under conservation area constraints, however it is worthy of further protection with a Tree Preservation Order. There is deadwood within the canopy which could be removed in the interests of good arboriculture practice ensuring the overall habit and balance of the crown is maintained. The design of the proposed development should be reconsidered to ensure the retention and protection of T4 – lime.

A load bearing ground protection surface has been proposed for the protection of tree roots, a detailed method statement to include arboriculture supervision of these works and any other ground disturbance proposed within root protection areas will be required and agreed in writing. Tree protection measures will be required to be implemented to ensure the protection and long term retention of trees within the site.

Recommendations:

1. T4 – lime tree is retained and protected and accommodated within the overall design of the proposed development; protection measures must be agreed in writing. 2. Agree to removal of T14 , T15 , 2xcypress within G18 , G19 , 4x cypress. 3. A landscape scheme must be agreed in writing to mitigate proposed tree losses; replacement tree planting must be undertaken at a ratio of 3:1 (3x new trees for each tree proposed for removal); proposals must include a maintenance regime for a minimum period of 5 years post planting. 4. Agree to works to crown raise T6 - Horse chestnut to a maximum height of 5m above ground level; crown clean T10 - Red oak. 5. Applicant to submit and agree in writing a detailed method statement for the installation of a load bearing root protection area, and all underground utility services or ground disturbance in proximity to root protection areas, to include arboriculture supervision.

Environmental Recommendation of refusal due to the lack of a Phase 1 Desk Study, Hours of Health construction condition. County Archaeology The settlement of Hornby is recorded in Domesday Book (AD1086) although the name derives from a Scandinavian personal name which suggests that there may have been settlement in the area during a period of Viking colonisation during the 9th Page 10 or tenth century. During the 13 th century, the Neville family created a new borough at Hornby, possibly shifting the earlier settlement from the Castle Stede area to the north of the present settlement. The ‘seigneurial borough’ founded by the Neville’s had a castle (Lancashire Historic Environment Record PRN 561), chapel, market place, grammar school and friary (PRN 562), with the ground within the borough divided into ‘burgage plots’. These were narrow strips of land, fronting onto the main roads and containing a house (often with a shop attached) fronting onto the street and workshops, outbuildings and gardens to the rear. This pattern of property division is fossilized in the modern property boundaries of the settlement core, which may in many cases be on the lines laid out 600 years ago. The area of the borough extended north and south of the bridge over the River Wenning and the Old Vicarage (PRN 16390) lies in the core of the probable area of the medieval borough. Excavation (PRN 25259) at Strands Farm by Oxford Archaeology North in 2003 revealed that archaeological features relating to the medieval settlement can survive, despite post medieval and modern development of the village.

Consequently should the Local Planning Authority be minded to grant planning permission to this or any other scheme, LCAS would recommend that the applicants be required to undertake a programme of archaeological work. Such work is likely to involve a watching brief on all groundworks, with sufficient provision allowed for the open-area archaeological excavation of any significant archaeological deposits that might be encountered. This is recommended as a condition, in accordance with the requirements of PPS 5, Policy HE12.

Access Officer View not received.

Hornby Parish No objections regarding the proposed extension and change to access, but the Council majority have concerns over the proposed timber cladding and feel that an alternative material more in keeping with the surrounding buildings, such as stone, should be used on the side facing the Church.

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 Hornby Church Council approves an extension to the Retirement Home, of the size and on the site suggested. However, we do not approve the final appearance of the extension as planned unless the outer facing of the walls is built in natural stone. We therefore we formally oppose the plans as presented.

5.2 In explanation, it was strongly felt that an extension as suggested in its cedar-clad finish standing in close proximity to a stone-built Grade 1 listed building (the church ) is entirely inappropriate as indeed it would be to the stone built Grade 2 listed building (The Old Vicarage itself.)

5.3 To date 19 Letters of objection have been received from local residents including the MP, Mr B Wallace, a resident of the village. The main grounds for comment are as follows: -

• Concerns over the extent of tree felling to accommodate the development. On particular concerns is the loss of tree (T4) a silver pendent lime close to the entrance from Main Street. The tree is of special merit and provides fragrance and a floral display. • Concern over the loss of tree to the rear of the plot, the tree form part of a group of trees seen from the church yard and the access road leading to Monteagle Square. • The design of the extension is not in keeping with the Grade II building to which it relates. • The revised access to the Old Vicarage is via the single width carriageway access road with no footways within the ground of Hornby Castle. The access is of limited width and use by residents, pedestrians and cyclists, further use by all the vehicles serving the retirement home would represent a highway hazard. • Visibility leading out from the access road onto Main Street is limited to the summit of the bridge. In addition, there is reduced forward visibility over the brow of the bridge. • The width of the gateway via the lodge is only 3.53m and has no ability to be improved, the current access off Main Street could be widened. The limited width could lead to conflict between vehicle entering and leaving via the lodge gate. • The new entrance to the old vicarage is via the original castle entrance and a listed wall. The Page 11 use of this access by commercial and other traffic could threaten the listed structure. • The site lies within a flood risk area and further development should be resisted. • The scale of the extension to the old vicarage is excessive, doubling the floor space of the building. • Potential for conflict between the users of the private drive and the occupier of and visitors to Castle Lodge. Both pedestrian and via parked cars associated with The Lodge. • No parking is allowed on the private driveway. The use of this access route and the increase in servicing requirement could lead to vehicles parking and blocking the private road. • The listed wall and gate through which all service vehicles are proposed to enter the site is of limited height to such an extent that ambulances and fire engines could not pass through. • The immediate area has seven listed structures including two grade I a II* and four grade II. The extension is considered to have a detrimental effect upon the setting of the Grade I St Margaret’s Church and the wider Hornby Conservation Area. • The submission documents in particular the Heritage Statement are lacking in information and appraisal in respect of the listed building and potential impact of the development upon them. • The photomontages appear to be misleading and have been selective in their viewpoints. • The lack of parking provision within the scheme is likely to lead to parking within the parkland of the Castle to the detriment of the setting of the Castle and the Lodge. • The scale of the development will have a detrimental effect upon the character and setting of the Old vicarage, itself a Grade II listed building. • Concerns that the car parking area is not to be increased and will result in over use and demand for on-street parking, particularly at the weekends.

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 National Planning Policy Statements (PPS)

PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) - sets out the overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development, advocating high quality design, accessibility to services and facilities, reducing the need to travel, inclusiveness, efficient use of land and improvements and enhancing biodiversity and landscape character.

PPS3 (Housing) – seeks to ensure that housing is developed in suitable locations which are easily accessible, well connected to public transport or other means of transport other than the private car and offers a good range of community facilities.

PPS4 (Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth) - seeks to ensure that the countryside is protected for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources and to ensure it may be enjoyed by all. Furthermore this document advocates that most new development should be located in or on the edge of existing settlements where employment, housing (including affordable housing), services and other facilities can be provided close together.

• Recognise that heritage assets are a non-renewable resource • Take account of the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits of heritage conservation • Recognise that intelligently managed change may sometimes be necessary if heritage assets are to be maintained in the long term.

In this particular case policies HE6 (information requirements), HE7 and HE9 (development affecting heritage assets and relating to designated assets), HE10 (development affecting the setting of heritage assets) are relevant.

PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) - establishes the Government’s objectives for rural areas and reiterates that d ecisions relating to development proposals should be based on Page 12 sustainable development principles and ensures effective protection of the environment.

6.2 Lancaster District Local Plan (LDLP) adopted April 2004 (saved policies)

Policy E4 (Countryside Area) – relates to development within the Countryside Area and states that development will only be permitted where it is appropriate to its surroundings and has no adverse effect on nature conservation.

Policy E33 (Alteration and Extensions to Listed buildings) – relates to proposals involving external and internal alterations to listed buildings and advocates that new extensions should be sympathetic in scale, materials and position.

Policy E35 (Conservation Area and their Surroundings) seeks to protect important views into and across the conservation area in order to preserve the important historic townscape settings of the district.

Policy E38 (New Building in Conservation Areas) Development proposals within conservation areas will only be permitted where these reflect the scale and style of surrounding buildings and use complementary materials.

Policy E39 (Alterations and Extensions) states that alterations and extensions to buildings within the conservation area will only be permitted where the proposal will not result in the loss or alteration of features which contribute to the character of the building and area and that the design, scale, form and materials are sympathetic to the building and area.

6.3 Lancaster Core Strategy (LCS)

Policy SC1 (Sustainable Development) - development should be located in an area where it is convenient to walk, cycle or travel by public transport between homes, workplaces, shops and other facilities, uses energy efficient design and construction practices, incorporates renewable energy technologies and is compatible with the character of the surrounding landscape.

Policy SC3 (Rural Villages) - lists Hornby as one of the eight key villages where an allowance of 10% of new homes and 5% of employment is made to accommodate development to meet local needs.

Policy SC4 (Meeting the District's Housing Requirements) – sets out the Council’s aim to maximise the opportunities offered by new residential developments to redress imbalances in the local housing market, achieve housing that genuinely addresses the needs of groups with legitimate special requirement where these are clearly evident and includes the elderly of the District.

Policy SC5 (Achieving Quality in Design) seeks to ensure that development proposals achieve the Core Strategy vision and that new development will be of a quality that enhances the character of the area, results in an improved appearance where conditions are unsatisfactory and compliments and enhances public realm.

Policy E1 (Environmental Capital) – seeks to safeguard and enhance the District's Environmental Capital. In particular, this policy seeks to protect and enhance listed buildings and conservation areas; conserve and enhance landscapes; direct development to locations where previously developed land can be recycled and resist development which would have a detrimental impact on environmental quality and public amenity.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 The principle issues for Members to consider in the determination of this application relate to the impact upon the character and appearance of the listed Old vicarage and wall with 3 Gateways, the impact of the development upon the setting of a number of listed structures including the Grade I Church of St Margaret and Hornby Castle, affect upon the setting of Hornby Conservation area, including the loss of trees, highway safety and residential amenity.

Page 13 7.2 The Heritage Asset

The Government’s overarching aims for the historic environment are set out in PPS5 which advocates that heritage assets (which includes listed buildings) should be conserved and enjoyed for the quality of life they bring to this and future generations. To achieve this, the Government’s objectives for development relating to heritage assets is that it should recognise that heritage assets are a non-renewable resource and take account of the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits of the conservation of the heritage asset. PPS5 also states that wherever possible, heritage assets should be put to an appropriate and viable use that is consistent with their conservation and the positive contribution of such heritage assets to local character and sense of place should be recognised and valued.

7.3 The site lies within the Hornby Conservation Area and relates closely to seven listed structures: -

- The Grade II Old Vicarage

- The Grade II Wall with 3 Gateways located within the grounds of the Old Vicarage

- The Grade II 58 Main Street dwelling house

- The Grade I Church of St Margaret

- The Grade 2* Cross Base to the south of the Church of St Margaret

- The Grade I Hornby Castle

- The Grade II Gates, Walls and Lodge at the entrance to the drive leading to Hornby

Castle.

7.4 The principle, design approach and scale of development were the subject of pre-application discussions with the agent, English Heritage and Lancaster City Council’s Conservation Officer. The design approach was supported by English Heritage but concerns were raised over scale of the original concept. The proposal was subsequently revised and resubmitted in the form of the application.

7.5 Old Vicarage

English Heritage acknowledge that the Old Vicarage is the single historic asset most affected by the scheme as the extension represents a substantial addition to the listed building with much of the grounds subsumed by its construction. A major connective element will be required and there is the introduction of a modern architectural design and non-vernacular materials. They noted that the submission scheme responded to pre application advice both in the design approach and the elimination of the necessity to removal of a canted bay window. The development will also provide an opportunity to remove unsympathetic development to the building with the demolition of a large glazed flat roof conservatory to the front of the building. Its removal will reveal architectural features such as the doorway, currently obscured.

7.6 Wall with 3 Gateways located within the grounds of the Old Vicarage

The proposal seeks to open up the archway and utilise this as the main access route to the Old vicarage. The scheme as originally submitted precluded use of the access by ambulances as the wrought work within the arch reduced the effective opening height. The scheme has been considered again and the design revised to lower the ground on approach form either direction. The removal of a flagged area between the base of the arch and minimal excavation has enabled the gateway to be accessible by service vehicles. This approach is considered to be a minimal intervention which enables the re-use of an original access. It is proposed to remove all the encroaching ivy and vegetation together with re-pointing and painted/repair where necessary.

7.7 58 Main Street - dwelling house

The development will maintain the access from Main Street. The current access is open and the Page 14 proposal provides an opportunity for a boarded timber gate to be introduced to the Main Street elevation. A formal parking area and curtilage to the dwelling will be provided which is currently unavailable to the occupants. The scheme as originally submitted sought to fell a protected pendulous lime close to the frontage with Main Street. The scheme has bee redesigned to maintain the tree and provide a boundary in the form of an evergreen hedgerow rather than a stone wall. This relationship is considered to complement both the setting of the listed building and the wider conservation area.

7.8 Church of St Margaret

The proposed scheme will impact upon the setting of the Grade I listed church as the extension will be visible from within the church yard and when exiting the side entrance to the church. English Heritage whilst acknowledging the impact does not consider the new building to be too intrusive. The relationship is aided by the raising of the boundary wall to screen all but the top of the standing seam roof to the single storey section and the two storey section is set back into the trees with rounded ends and low profile to further reduce the massing of the building. A request for additional visual evidence was suggested by English Heritage at the SE end of the church. A further photomontage has been provided at the side door of the church looking toward the development. This again confirms the relationship of the new building to both the church and the vicarage. The relationship being supported by the conservation officer.

7.9 Walls and Lodge (54 Main Street) at the entrance to the drive leading to Hornby Castle.

English Heritage do not consider that the visual impact of the development will be unduly detrimental. The garden area to the south of the Old Vicarage has substantial tree coverage which is not proposed to be lost as part of the development and is protected by virtue of its conservation area location. There will inevitably by some additional traffic movement through the lodge entrance but this will be relatively low in number, frequency and speed and is unlikely to impact upon the listed structures.

7.10 Hornby Castle

The Old Vicarage is a considerable distance from Hornby Castle with substantial grounds and tree planting between the application site and the castle. The main views of the castle are from the bridge over the River Wenning. This view will not be affected or interrupted by the proposed development. The trees within the parkland close to the development are located within the conservation area are protected but their retention could be condition.

7.11 Hornby Conservation Area

The developm ent site is relatively hidden from public aspect and views across the conservation area. The building is set well back form the main road and screened by mature trees and the Old vicarage building itself. The main view of the development will be from Main Street across the Church of St Margaret church yard. The views will be at a distance and of limited vista. The development is not considered to unduly affect the setting of or view within the conservation area.

In concluding, English Heritage has reached the view that while representing a substantial addition to The Old Vicarage, the proposed extension will not result in a level of harm either to listed structures or their settings that would require us to sustain an objection to the scheme. Consequently, the submission in its revised form is considered to accord with planning policy E33, E35, E38 and E39 of the LDLP, polices SC1, SC5 and E1 of the LCS and national policy guidance contained in PPS5 – Planning and Historic Environment

7.12 Loss of Trees

The development will result in the loss of a number of trees close to the building. The loss of many of the trees has not raised issue with the Tree Protection Officer and form part of a much larger group of trees close to the new building. A large group of trees will still remain both within the garden to the Old Vicarage and the parkland of the neighbouring castle. In addition, it is proposed to condition a landscaping scheme with mitigating tree planting as part of the overall strategy. The loss of a single pendulous tree lime close to 58 Main Street was of concern to many local residents and the tree Protection Officer alike. The tree was considered to be unusual as a specimen and add to Page 15 the amenity of the area. As indicated earlier in the report a redesign of the curtilage arrangement to 58 Main Street have sought to maintain the tree whilst still providing for a defined curtilage to the adjoining dwelling. Overall, the loss of tree associated with the development is not considered to unduly affect the character of the conservation area or setting of the listed structures. The development is considered to accord with policy E35 of the LDLP and Policy E1 of the LCS.

7.13 Highway Safety

Concern has been raised by a number of local residents that the junction of the private drive with Main Street is substandard. The concerns relate to the limited width of the gateway and sight lines from the junction towards Wenning Bridge. County Highways have not raised any objection to the use of the access for additional vehicles. The sight lines to the bridge are adequate for the speed limit within the village and the gates opening is set back approx 10m from the edge of the carriageway which is sufficient to enable a vehicle to wait off the line of the carriageway whilst a vehicle is emerging from the private drive. The current access whilst slightly wider has a reduced set back and very restricted sight lines to the north. In addition is has to be acknowledged that the private drive already serves a number of properties known as Castle Park. County Highways have suggested condition to ensure the provision of suitable car parking, turning areas and cycle storage.

7.14 Residential Amenity

Many of the objection letters from the residents of Castle Park and The Lodge raise concern over the potential impact of the vehicles using the private drive and its potential to effect living conditions. The properties to Castle Park are some distance from the site and mainly use the drive as a mean of accessing the residential plots. The use of the drive for additional vehicles is not considered to unduly impact upon these residents. The Lodge ids much closer to the development site but does enjoy a private garden area to the north of the lodge. There is also a belt of mature tree to further screen the Lodge from the development site. The increased use of the private drive will have inevitable lead to some additional disturbance but this has to be considered against the use by the residents of Castle Grove and Hornby Castle and the relationship of the lodge to the drive and new access. Again, it is considered that the development will have an impact upon the amenity of the resident of The Lodge but will not be unduly detrimental.

7.15 Rural Employment

When considering schemes involving economic developments in rural areas, PPS4 states that local planning authorities should adopt a positive approach to proposals which secure sustainable economic growth with particular regard to accessibility, quality of design, impact on the economic and physical regeneration of an area and the impact on local employment. It is acknowledged that in terms of rural employment the scheme will be beneficial as it maintain a rural employment site and aid is long term viability.

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 N/A.

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 Based on the above considerations, the overall development is not considered to unduly impact upon listed buildings, Hornby Conservation Area of the amenities of neighbouring residents. The proposed extension is considered to be compliant with national policy guidance and planning policy contained with the development plan. Members are therefore advised that planning permission should be granted subject to the following conditions.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard 3 year time limit 2. Development to be built in accordance with the approved plans 3. Amended plan dated 1 November 2010 4. Archaeology programme of investigation Page 16 5. Hours of construction - 0800- 1800 Mon to Fri, 0800-1400 Sat. 6. Contaminated land study and mitigation 7. Provision of turning area – as plan 8. Provision of parking area – as plan 9. Details of cycle storage 10. Details of the existing and proposed ground floor levels to be submitted. 11. Landscaping scheme including mitigation tree planting 12. Method statement for the installation of load bear root protection area, including arboricultural supervision. 13. Scheme of construction management to be agreed including construction access points. 14. Details of the vegetation and restoration of the listed walls with three gates to be agreed. 15. Precise details of the following to be submitted in writing and agreed:

a. Making good of the stonework following removal of the conservatory b. Details of the landscaping following removal of the conservatory c. Details of the abutment to the walls of the new extension with the original building d. Constructional details and finishes to the new gates to No. 58 Main St.

16. Samples of the following to be agreed: -

a. Sample panel of the cedar cladding b. Sample panel of the render including colour c. Sample panel of the natural stone including string course d. Profile of the rainwater goods e. Profile and detail of the doors and windows

17. Details of the finish to the new driveway and drainage system 18. The raised northern boundary wall to be undertaken in stone, coursing and pointing to match the remaining wall.

Human Rights Act

Background Papers

1. Full copy of the final comments of English Heritage

Page 17

NORTH WEST REGION

Mr Andrew Holden Direct Dial: 0161 242 1413 Lancaster City Council Direct Fax: 0161 242 1401 Palatine Hall Dalton Square LANCASTER Our ref: L00090174 Lancashire LA1 1PW

29 October 2010

Dear Mr Holden

Notifications under Circular 01/2001, Circular 08/2009 & GDPO 1995 FORMER VICARAGE, 56, MAIN STREET, HORNBY-WITH-FARLETON, LANCASTER, LANCASHIRE, LA2 8JT Application No 10/0611/LB

Thank you for your letter of 22 July 2010 notifying English Heritage of the above application.Thank you for your request for further advice from English Heritage on the above applications which refer to proposed alterations to the Grade II listed Old Vicarage at Hornby, Lancashire.

Summary The proposed extension to the Old Vicarage was the subject of pre-application discussions between Lancaster City Council’s Conservation Officer, Stephen Gardner, and English Heritage Historic Buildings Advisor, Marion Barter. Plans were submitted for consideration and a joint site visit took place on 29 June 2009. At this time it was the opinion of both Mr Gardner and Ms Barter that the proposal was likely to be too harmful to the Old Vicarage to be granted permission. Reasons for this included the scale of the development, the resulting impact upon the grounds (and therefore setting) of the Old Vicarage, and the proposed loss of a canted bay window to provide a link between the old and new structures.

On the basis of this advice, the proposal was subsequently revised and resubmitted. English Heritage has now considered the case fully and can offer the following comments in addition to our previous correspondence.

SUITES 3.3 AND 3.4 CANADA HOUSE 3 CHEPSTOW STREET MANCHESTER M1 5FW Telephone 0161 242 1400 Facsimile 0161 242 1401 www.english-heritage.org.uk

English Heritage is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. All information held by the organisation will be accessible in response to a Freedom of Information request, unless one of the exemptions in the Act applies.

Page 18

NORTH WEST REGION

English Heritage Advice Advice

1.Significance of the site

Significance of Hornby

Hornby near Lancaster is a traditional planned settlement which originated in the Middle Ages at a crossing of the River Wenning. The town is dominated by Hornby Castle, located in a bend of the river to the east. Many of the town’s buildings are historic stone-built structures in the vernacular style dating to the late 17 th century to early 19 th century. Aspects of special interest include the surviving burgage plots and castle demesne (which were laid out in a single phase in the 13 th century), and the wide use of locally quarried stone for boundary walls, pavements and occasionally roof tiles. In 1973 Hornby was designated a conservation area by Lancaster City Council. The town contains a proportionally high number of listed buildings and structures; several of these will be affected by the proposed scheme.

Significance of the Old Vicarage

The Old Vicarage is an attractive sandstone building probably dating to 1850 (carved foliate plaque dated MDCCCL). The building has handsome architectural details including mullioned windows, tudor-arched doors and window lights and finely finished gables with copings and finials; the composite architectural and historical interest of the building is reflected in it being listed at Grade II. Despite being located immediately south of St Margaret’s Church, its former close association with the place of worship has been diminished by a change of use; for the past 20 years the Old Vicarage has operated as care home for the elderly. This change of use has necessitated some adaptations to the interior of the building and an unsympathetic glazed extension has been added to the south elevation.

Significance of adjacent heritage assets

A boundary wall with three gateways to the south-east of the Old Vicarage formerly provided an entrance to the grounds of Hornby Castle. The Grade II listed structure, which probably dates from circa 1820 to the mid-19 th century, has a re-set datestone of 1660. The iron gates and overthrow top contribute to the architectural interest of the archway.

No 58 Main Street comprises two mid-18 th century houses in sandstone with a stone

SUITES 3.3 AND 3.4 CANADA HOUSE 3 CHEPSTOW STREET MANCHESTER M1 5FW Telephone 0161 242 1400 Facsimile 0161 242 1401 www.english-heritage.org.uk

Page 19

NORTH WEST REGION slate roof. The south part of the building is earlier, with surviving mullion windows, and it is in the south gable that the present entrance is located. This building, currently in the same ownership as the Old Vicarage and is listed at Grade II.

St Margaret’s Church, to the north of the Old Vicarage, was built in 1514 by Sir Edward Stanley Lord Monteagle. Its tower is unusual, being octagonal in plan and at the east end is an equally rare semi-octagonal apse. The nave was rebuilt in 1817 and the arcades and clerestorey added in 1889 by Paley and Austin. The building is Grade I listed. The tower and west end of the church are highly visible from the Main Street, a views that is identified in the 2009 conservation area appraisal as being important. A pre-Conquest sandstone cross base to the south of the church is separately listed at Grade II*.

No 54 Main Street, also known as The Lodge, is built of sandstone with a steeply pitched slate roof behind an embattled parapet. It dates to circa 1850 and is a Grade II listed building. The lodge, which is highly visible from Main Street, stands at an entrance to the Hornby Castle drive. The listing includes adjacent walling and two pairs of gate piers of similar date. The significance of The Lodge and adjacent wall/piers lies in their architectural form, use of traditional materials, their historic association with Hornby Castle and their highly visible location within Hornby itself.

Hornby Castle (Grade I listed) comprises a large house with early 16 th century keep built on earlier foundations. The early 18 th century south-west front was completely re- modelled in 1849-52 by Sharpe and Paley in a domestic Gothic style. Further additions and alterations were made in 1881 and 1889-91 by Paley and Austin. The significance of the castle lies in its topographical location, its relation both to the town and river, the survival of the readable landscape fortifications and grounds, the survival of interior fittings (including a library with woodwork thought to be by Gillows), its association with historical figures and events, and its later association with prominent architects. Terraced garden walls to the south and east of the castle are separately listed at Grade II.

2. Impact of the proposed works

Impact on Hornby

The impact of the proposed scheme on the general historic character of the town of

SUITES 3.3 AND 3.4 CANADA HOUSE 3 CHEPSTOW STREET MANCHESTER M1 5FW Telephone 0161 242 1400 Facsimile 0161 242 1401 www.english-heritage.org.uk

Page 20

NORTH WEST REGION

Hornby would appear to be quite minimal beyond a possible increase in traffic levels on Main Street and the introduction to a conservation area of non-vernacular materials and modern design. The proposed extension would not be highly visible from the town and would not interrupt general views or significantly alter the skyline.

Impact on The Old Vicarage

The Old Vicarage is the single historic asset most affected by the scheme. The planned extension represents a substantial addition to the listed building and much of the grounds will be subsumed by its construction. The extension requires a major connecting element between the old and new buildings, and there will be an introduction to the site of modern architectural design and non-vernacular materials. In addition, there will be an increased need for traffic/parking provision with the associated noise and visual intrusion.

We do note, however, that the scale and form of the resubmitted extension respond to earlier advice in terms of overall mass and the inclusion of a low level link. Advice to use a clean, modern architectural style that is distinct from the listed building has been followed and the scheme no longer requires the removal of the canted bay window. The existing glazed extension will be demolished as part of the proposed works; this will have a beneficial impact on the setting of the listed building by removing an unsympathetic addition and better revealing the architectural interest of the structure through features such as the doorway, currently obscured.

While no financial justification for the increased capacity of the nursing home has been provided, we are conscious that considerable alterations have already been made to the building to allow a change of use for providing care facilities. Any discontinuation of that use would undoubtedly have a detrimental effect on the listed building in terms of renewed requests for internal alterations. As such it is probably within the interests of the heritage asset to ensure a continuity of function where possible.

Impact on adjacent historic assets

As part of the proposed scheme, the archway in the wall to the south-east of the Old Vicarage would be brought into use as the main access routes to the nursing home. I note that the height of the archway provides insufficient clearance for ambulances which may need to access the property on occasion. English Heritage would like to voice a strong objection to any removal or alteration of the listed archway or wall to permit vehicular access. If it is possible to provide the required clearance by lowering

SUITES 3.3 AND 3.4 CANADA HOUSE 3 CHEPSTOW STREET MANCHESTER M1 5FW Telephone 0161 242 1400 Facsimile 0161 242 1401 www.english-heritage.org.uk

Page 21

NORTH WEST REGION the ground level without undermining or destabilising the archway and wall then we have no objection to this course of action. The introduction of traffic with associated noise and vibration will need to be considered carefully, however, we do not believe that either the amount of traffic or the anticipated speed of vehicles would be sufficiently high to be damaging to the listed structure. The risk of vehicle strike to the listed structure should be mitigated against through design. The removal of encroached vegetation to reveal the archway would be desirable as would the opportunity for carrying out any necessary repair or restoration work.

The impact of the planned extension on No 58 Main Street in terms of visual intrusion will, in my opinion, be minimal. I do recognise, however, that changes to the ownership of the listed building may be implemented as part of the proposed works. It may be worth considering a one-way vehicular access system for the nursing home, utilising both the listed archway and the existing access point adjacent to No 58 Main Street. This could have the benefit of reducing the number of vehicle passages through each entrance and potentially reducing congestion within the site. Access and privacy requirements for a private dwelling in separate ownership at No 58 Main Street may, however, affect the viability of this suggestion.

The proposed scheme will impact upon the setting of the Grade I listed church as the extension will be visible to the south of the churchyard. From the visuals provided, I do not consider the impact of the new build to be too intrusive, however, I note that the computer generated image (cgi) provided by the architect shows a view from the farthest corner of the church (from where the extension will be least visible) and not from the south-east end of the church from where it would be more evident. I suggest therefore that additional cgis would be helpful to the Local Authority in reaching a decision on the actual visual impact of the extension. This is in accordance with HE6 of PPS5.

I do not consider that the visual impact of the extension upon the listed building at No 54 Main Street will be unduly detrimental. Concerns regarding the removal of the existing vegetation screen can be addressed through the imposition of conditions. Opening the listed archway as an access point to the nursing home for vehicular traffic will have an impact on the listed structures (The Lodge and gate piers/wall) in terms of setting as they will be subjected to an increase in traffic flow but it should be noted that the very purpose of these structures (i.e. marking access points through boundary walls) makes this a not unsuitable change in circumstances. However, the Local Authority must be convinced that the level of noise and vibration from increased traffic

SUITES 3.3 AND 3.4 CANADA HOUSE 3 CHEPSTOW STREET MANCHESTER M1 5FW Telephone 0161 242 1400 Facsimile 0161 242 1401 www.english-heritage.org.uk

Page 22

NORTH WEST REGION will not be of such a level as to be damaging to the listed structures or their setting (it may be helpful to refer to English Heritage draft guidance on setting: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/heritage-assets-draft/ ). Such effects may be ameliorated by the use of a one-way system as described above.

In terms of the impact on Hornby Castle, I do not consider that the visual impact will be so detrimental as to sustain an objection to the application. The Old Vicarage is a considerable distance from the Castle and its formal grounds and the main view of the castle (as identified in the Hornby Conservation Area Appraisal 2009) is from the bridge over the River Wenning to the north-east; this will not be interrupted by the proposed extension. The retention of screening vegetation can further be conditioned as part of any permission.

Recommendation We are mindful that the current proposals reflect closely advice that the applicant received in 2009 from both English Heritage and the Council. Having fully considered the details of the scheme and the potential impact upon a number of highly graded heritage assets, English Heritage has reached the decision that, while representing a substantial addition to The Old Vicarage, the proposed extension will not result in a level of harm either to listed structures or their settings that would require us to sustain an objection to the scheme.

It may be helpful to direct the Council’s attention to English Heritage’s draft guidance on the setting of historic assets in terms of visual intrusion, noise and vibration.

I am copying this letter to Ms S Bull, a local resident who has been in correspondence with English Heritage regarding this application.

It is not necessary to consult us again on this application. Please send us a copy of the decision notice in due course. This will help us to monitor actions related to changes to historic places.

SUITES 3.3 AND 3.4 CANADA HOUSE 3 CHEPSTOW STREET MANCHESTER M1 5FW Telephone 0161 242 1400 Facsimile 0161 242 1401 www.english-heritage.org.uk

Page 23

NORTH WEST REGION

Yours sincerely

Cathy Tuck Historic Environment Adviser E-mail: [email protected] cc Mrs S Bull, The Lodge, Hornby Castle, Hornby, Lancaster, LA2 8LA

Stephen Gardner, Lancashire City Council

SUITES 3.3 AND 3.4 CANADA HOUSE 3 CHEPSTOW STREET MANCHESTER M1 5FW Telephone 0161 242 1400 Facsimile 0161 242 1401 www.english-heritage.org.uk

Page 24 AgendaAgenda Item Item 7 Committee Date Application Number

A7 13 December 2010 10/00611/LB

Application Site Proposal

The Old Vicarage Retirement Home Listed building consent for the erection of an extension to provide 15 new bedrooms, change of 56 Main Street access and erection of new boundary wall

Hornby

Lancaster

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Forrester Retirement Home JMP Architects Ltd

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

12 August 2010

Case Officer Mr Andrew Holden

Departure

Summary of Recommendation

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.2 The eastern boundary of the site is formed by a large group of trees. These are protected as both groups and as a number of individual trees including a number of cypress trees, willow, yew, oak and horse chestnut. Immediately along side the group of tree is a grade II listed wall with 3 gates. This was formerly the entrance to Hornby Castle grounds.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The application is seeking to erect an extension to the eastern site of the old vicarage to provide 15 new bedrooms, communal living area and support facilities. The building is attached to the northern east end of the building at single storey. A single storey extension runs parallel to the northern Page 25 boundary of the site stepping up to a two storey element with a north-south orientation on the eastern boundary of the site. The extension will increase the number of bedroom of bedroom from 13 to 28.

2.4 Outside the building the stone boundary wall to the adjoining church is to be raised across the single storey element. To facilitate the siting of the main section of the building eight trees are to be felled with crown raising works to two further trees. The existing access to the site from Main Street is to be closed and a new curtilage to be created to 58 Main Street to provid e a garden/parking area. Access to the Old Vicarage is to be gained via a new drive to be constructed through the central gateway of the listed wall with gates. The driveway will lead from the private access road within the castle grounds directly into the courtyard and car paring area of the Old Vicarage.

3.0 Site History

3.1 The site has been the subject of a number of planning application for extension to the building. consent was granted in 1989 for the development of a two storey extension to the building an a similar footprint to that currently submitted. This consent was renewed in 1994. A single storey extension was approved in 1998 on a similar footprint to the two storey section of the current application. An application to renew this consent was withdrawn in 2003.

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory consultees:

Statutory Consultee Response English Heritage Initially, no comments on to the scheme and the application should be determined in line with national and local policy guidance and on the basis of your own specialist conservation advice.

Following further discussion with English Heritage and a direct request for a detailed assessment of the proposed development. A detailed response was received; a full copy of the response is attached to the previous agenda item as a background paper. An extract and recommendation of the consultee is set out below: -

Recommendation

We are mindful that the current proposals reflect closely advice that the applicant received in 2009 from both English Heritage and the Council. Having fully considered the details of the scheme and the potential impact upon a number of highly graded Page 26 heritage assets, English Heritage has reached the decision that, while representing a substantial addition to The Old Vicarage, the proposed extension will not result in a level of harm either to listed structures or their settings that would require us to sustain an objection to the scheme.

We would like to suggest that additional visual evidence could be submitted to allow the Council to be certain that they have sufficient information to reach an informed decision on the impact of the extension on the Grade I listed St Margaret’s Church. It may be helpful to direct the Council’s attention to English Heritage’s draft guidance on the setting of historic assets in terms of visual intrusion, noise and vibration. I am copying this letter to Ms S Bull, a local resident who has been in correspondence with English Heritage regarding this application.

It is not necessary to consult us again on this application. Please send us a copy of the decision notice in due course. This will help us to monitor actions related to changes to historic places.

Conservation Officer I have had pre-application discussions including site with the agents and English Heritage. The scale of the proposed development is in accordance with the guidance provided by both the LPA and English Heritage. I expressed my own view that any new development should be a modern design and this has been endorsed by English Heritage.

I specifically requested a low pitched roof with a metal roofing system. The adjacent grade I listed church is perpendicular gothic and this includes a near flat roof probably covered in lead sheet. I was also concerned that the development should comprise of a single storey building adjacent to the former Vicarage and that the accommodation could be a two storey building set back from the former Vicarage to retain a significant amount of the open garden space.

Following our recent discussion with the architects I wish to endorse the following:

The use of weathered zinc roofing with a standing seam detail. Ridge eaves and verge details to be conditioned. The use of metal rainwater goods with a similar finish to the zinc roofing material. I have noted that the rainwater pipes are not shown on the submitted elevation drawings and I would wish to see the proposed location. This can be conditioned if necessary. The roof lights to have a similar frame colour to the zinc roofing. The use of split faced sandstone walling. My preferred stone would be Fletcher Bank supplied by Stancliffe Stone. The string course detail to be sawn stone as discussed and agreed. A sample panel of masonry with the pointed mortar finish should be provided for on site inspection approval by the LPA. We agreed to support the use of western red cedar boarding. A sample panel of the boarding should be provided for on site inspection approval by the LPA. The render finish should be a self coloured render e.g. Sto or equivalent and this should be conditioned. The windows to be Velfac a composite window with an aluminium external frame and a wood internal frame. The windows cills to be aluminium with no sub sill detail. I assume that the doors will be aluminium by Velfac. PPC finish to the aluminium frames to be agreed. We discussed and agreed that any spandrel panels in the full height glazing would be formed with a colure panel / glass? on the inside face. The colour to be agreed. The details of the new garden walls ramp finish and paving should be provided for the approval of the LPA. The surface finish to the new drive and car park is noted on the drawings and this is acceptable.

Setting

The new envelopment will affect the setting of the grade I listed building, the grade II Page 27 listed former Vicarage and views within the Conservation Area. There are benefits in that the vicarage will lose an awful conservatory extension that is damaging to the appearance of the listed building. The gateway will be refurbished and will once again be a formal entrance. I am confident that the development will not adversely affect the setting of the listed buildings.

I have supported the architects and their design process and I expect to see an exemplary development making use of high quality materials and finishes. Given the high architectural and historic significance of the setting the buildings should be of the highest quality. I have every confidence that this can be achieved.

Hornby Parish The Parish Council have no objections regarding the proposed extension and change Council to access, but the majority have concerns over the proposed timber cladding and feel that an alternative material more in keeping with the surrounding buildings, such as stone, should be used on the side facing the Church

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 To date 5 Letters of objection have been received from local residents including the MP, Mr B Wallace, a resident of the village. The main grounds for comment are as follows: -

- Concerns over the extent of tree felling to accommodate the development. On particular concerns is the loss of tree (T4) a silver pendent lime close to the entrance from Main Street. The tree is of special merit and provides fragrance and a floral display. - Concern over the loss of tree to the rear of the plot, the tree form part of a group of trees seen from the church yard and the access road leading to Monteagle Square. - The design of the extension is not in keeping with the Grade II building to which it relates. - The revised access to the Old Vicarage is via the single width carriageway access road with no footways within the ground of Hornby Castle. The access is of limited width and use by residents, pedestrians and cyclists, further use by all the vehicles serving the retirement home would represent a highway hazard. - Visibility leading out from the access road onto Main Street is limited to the summit of the bridge. In addition, there is reduced forward visibility over the brow of the bridge. - The width of the gateway via the lodge is only 3.53m and has no ability to be improved, the current access off Main Street could be widened. The limited width could lead to conflict between vehicle entering and leaving via the lodge gate. - The new entrance to the old vicarage is via the original castle entrance and a listed wall. The use of this access by commercial and other traffic could threaten the listed structure. - The site lies within a flood risk area and further development should be resisted. - The scale of the extension to the old vicarage is excessive, doubling the floor space of the building. - Potential for conflict between the users of the private drive and the occupier of and visitors to Castle Lodge. Both pedestrian and via parked cars associated with The Lodge. - No parking is allowed on the private driveway. The use of this access route and the increase in servicing requirement could lead to vehicles parking and blocking the private road. - The listed wall and gate through which all service vehicles are proposed to enter the site is of limited height to such an extent that ambulances and fire engines could not pass through. - The immediate area has seven listed structures including two grade I a II* and four grade II. The extension is considered to have a detrimental effect upon the setting of the Grade I St Margaret’s Church and the wider Hornby Conservation Area. - The submission documents in particular the Heritage Statement are lacking in information and appraisal in respect of the listed building and potential impact of the development upon them. - The photomontages appear to be misleading and have been selective in their viewpoints. - The lack of parking provision within the scheme is likely to lead to parking within the parkland of the Castle to the detriment of the setting of the Castle and the Lodge. - The scale of the development will have a detrimental effect upon the character and setting of the Old vicarage, itself a Grade II listed building. - Concerns that the car parking area is not to be increased and will result in over use and demand for on-street parking, particularly at the weekends.

Page 28 6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 The national planning policy statements relevant to the overall proposal are reported in the previous 10/00610/FUL report. In relation to the Listed building, the following national and local advice is considered to be of critical importance:

6.2 National Planning Policy Statements (PPS)

PPS5 (Planning for the Historic Environment) - the overarching aim is that the historic environment and its historic assets should be conserved and enjoyed for the quality of life they bring to this and future generations. In order to deliver sustainable development, PPS5 states that polices and decisions concerning the historic environment should: • Recognise that heritage assets are a non-renewable resource • Take account of the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits of heritage conservation • Recognise that intelligently managed change may sometimes be necessary if heritage assets are to be maintained in the long term. In this particular case policies HE6 (information requirements), HE7 and HE9 (development affecting heritage assets and relating to designated assets), HE10 (development affecting the setting of heritage assets) are relevant.

6.3 Lancaster District Local Plan (LDLP) adopted April 2004 (saved policies)

6.4 Lancaster Core Strategy (LCS)

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 The principle issues for Members to consider in the determination of this listed building application relate to the impact upon the character and appearance of the listed Old vicarage and wall with 3 Gateways, the impact of the development upon the setting of a number of listed structures including the Grade I Church of St Margaret and Hornby Castle.

7.2 The Heritage Asset

7.3 The site lies within the Hornby Conservation Area and relates closely to seven listed structures: -

- The Grade II Old Vicarage

- The Grade II Wall with 3 Gateways located within the grounds of the Old Vicarage

- The Grade II 58 Main Street dwelling house

Page 29 - The Grade I Church of St Margaret

- The Grade 2* Cross Base to the south of the Church of St Margaret

- The Grade I Hornby Castle

- The Grade II Gates, Walls and Lodge at the entrance to the drive leading to Hornby

Castle.

7.5 Old Vicarage

English Heritage acknowledge that the Old vicarage is the single historic asset most affected by the scheme as the extension represents a substantial addition to the listed building with much of the grounds subsumed by its construction. A major connective element will be required and there is the introduction of a modern architectural design and non-vernacular materials. They noted that the submission scheme responded to pre application advice both in the design approach and the elimination of the necessity to removal of a canted bay window. The development will also provide an opportunity to remove unsympathetic development to the building with the demolition of a large glazed flat roof conservatory to the front of the building. Its removal will reveal architectural features such as the doorway, currently obscured.

7.6 Wall with 3 Gateways located within the grounds of the Old Vicarage

The proposal seeks to open up the archway and utilise this as the main access route to the Old vicarage. The scheme as originally submitted precluded use of the access by ambulances as the wrought work within the arch reduced the effective opening height. The scheme has been considered again and the design revised to lower the ground on approach form either direction. The removal of a flagged area between the base of the arch and minimal excavation has enabled the gateway to be accessible by service vehicles. This approach is considered to be a minimal intervention which enables the re-use of an original access. It is proposed to removal all the encroaching ivy and vegetation together with re-pointing and painted/repair where necessary.

7.7 58 Main Street - dwelling house

The development will maintain the access from Main Street. The current access is open and the proposal provides an opportunity for a boarded timber gate to be introduced to the Main Street elevation. A formal parking area and curtilage to the dwelling will be provided which is currently unavailable to the occupants. The scheme as originally submitted sought to fell a protected pendulous lime close to the frontage with Main Street. The scheme has bee redesigned to maintain the tree and provide a boundary in the form of an evergreen hedgerow rather than a stone wall. This relationship is considered to complement both the setting of the listed building and the wider conservation area.

7.8 Church of St Margaret

7.9 Walls and Lodge (54 Main Street) at the entrance to the drive leading to Hornby Castle.

7.10 Hornby Castle

7.11 In concluding, English Heritage has reached the view that, while representing a substantial addition to The Old Vicarage, the proposed extension will not result in a level of harm either to listed structures or their settings that would require us to sustain an objection to the scheme. Consequently, the submission in its revised form is considered to accord with planning policy E33, of the LDLP, policy E1 of the LCS and national policy guidance contained in PPS5 – Planning and Historic Environment

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 N/A

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 Based on the above considerations, the overall development is no considered to unduly harm or impact upon listed buildings and their settings The proposed extension is considered to be compliant with national policy guidance and planning policy contained with the development plan. Members are therefore advised that listed building consent should be granted subject to the following conditions.

Recommendation

That Listed Building Consent BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard 3 year time limit 2. Development to be built in accordance with the approved plans 3. Amended plan dated 1 November 2010 4. Details of the existing and proposed ground floor levels to be submitted. 5. Details of the vegetation and restoration of the listed walls with three gates to be agreed. 6. Precise details of the following:- a. Making good of the stonework following removal of the conservatory b. Details of the landscaping following removal of the conservatory c. Details of the abutment to the walls of the new extension with the original building d. Constructional details and finishes to the new gates to No. 58 Main St.

7. Samples of the following to be agreed: - a. Sample panel of the cedar cladding b. Sample panel of the render including colour c. Sample panel of the natural stone including string course d. Profile of the rainwater goods e. Profile and detail of the doors and windows 8. Details of the finish to the new driveway and drainage system 9. The raised northern boundary wall to be undertaken in stone, coursing and pointing to match the remaining Page 31 wall.

Human Rights Act

Background Papers

Page 32 AgendaAgenda Item Item 8 Committee Date Application Number

A8 13 December 2010 10/01012/VCN

Application Site Proposal

Elms Hotel Variation of condition 2 on application 09/00158/FUL Elms Road to alter internal floor layout Morecambe Lancashire

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Hay Carr Estates Mr David Hall

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

29 December 2010 N/A

Case Officer Mr Andrew Drummond

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Approval

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 The Elms Hotel originated as a country house (it is believed to be the work of either William Coultard of Lancaster, or George Webster of Kendal) on the north side of the village of Bare. It was converted into a hotel at the end of the nineteenth century and a series of extensions, many of them displaying little architectural imagination, has altered its character so that very little of the original building is recognisable as such. It is, however, an important landmark within this part of Morecambe.

1.2 The surrounding area is residential, but the site is within easy walking distance of the parade of shops in Princes Crescent which serves the needs of the local community.

1.3 The site is undesignated in the Lancaster District Local Plan.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The purpose of th is application is to vary condition 2 attached to planning permission 09/00158/FUL. Condition 2 states:

"The permission relates solely to the application as amended by the letter(s) and/or plan(s) received on 21 May 2009, showing alterations to the car park and garden. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and so that the local planning authority shall be satisfied as to the details."

Unfortunately the amended plans referred to in the above condition are inconsistent and therefore result in confusion. The discrepancy arises because the floor plans are the same for the first and second floors, when the elevational drawings show that there is no second floor at the north east end of the building (an element previous removed following negotiations between the refusal of the 2008 application and the 2009 submission).

Secondly, the 2 nurses’ apartments proposed are not required (for the reasons described below in section 7) and therefore it is proposed to change these into assisted living units. These 2 changes Page 33 result in the number of apartments remaining at 48 as set out in the description of the 2009 permission, whilst addressing the inconsistencies that arisen. If the changes are acceptable to the Local Planning Authority, the description and the Unilateral Undertaking will need to be varied to remove references to the 2 nurses’ apartments.

2.2 It is proposed to replace the 2 nurses’ apartments and treatment rooms at basement level with 2 assisted living units at basement level, each with 2 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. The alteration would also result in a reduction of car parking spaces from 55 spaces in the basement to 51 spaces. In total across the whole development, there would be 45 2-bed apartments and 3 1-bed apartments, with 68 car parking space and separate secured cycle storage.

The proposed amendments do not significantly change the external appearance of the building. More window openings would be created at the basement level to serve the 2 new apartments. Each flat would have windows serving their 4 habitat rooms (the kitchen/diner, lounge and 2 bedrooms). The apartments would also be covered with a pitched roof rather than the previously proposed terrace arrangement.

3.0 Site History

3.1 A number of relevant applications relating to this site have previously been received by the Local Planning Authority. These include:

Application Number Proposal Decision 08/00354/FUL Demolition of existing building and erection of new single Refused building to house 48 no 2 bedroom and 2 no 1 bedroom assisted living apartments, a 1 bedroom wardens flat and 2 nurses studios as well as an under croft parking area and an under croft storage facility for use of the apartments 09/00158/FUL Demolition of existing building and erection of new single Approved building to house 44 no 2 bedroom and 4 no 1 bedroom assisted living apartments, 2 nurses studios, an under croft parking area and an under croft storage facility for use of the apartments

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory and internal consultees:

Consultee Response County Highways On the assumption that the site layout that is the subject of this current application is based on an earlier plan, the Service has no objections from a highway point of view.

Environmental No comments received within the statutory consultation period. Health Morecambe Town The Town Council would like to see the building maintained as a hotel. Council

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 No correspondence has been received at the time of compiling this report. Any comments subsequently received will be reported verbally.

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 National Planning Policy Statements (PPS) and Guidance notes (PPG)

PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) - provides generic advice for all new built development. Sites should be capable of optimising the full site boundary and should deliver an appropriate mix of Page 34 uses, green and other public spaces, safe and accessible environments and visually pleasing architecture. The prudent use of natural resources and assets, and the encouragement of sustainable modes of transport are important components of this advice. This advice is echoed in PPG13 - Transport. A high level of protection should be given to most valued townscapes and landscapes, wildlife habitats and natural resources, conserving and enhancing wildlife species and habitats and the promotion of biodiversity.

PPS3 (Housing) - illustrates the need for good quality residential development in sustainable locations which have good access to a range of services and facilities. The use of previously developed (brownfield) land is an explicit objective, as is the delivery of different types of affordable housing to meet local housing needs.

6.2 Lancaster District Local Plan - adopted April 2004 (saved policies)

Policy H12 (Layout, Design and Use of Materials) - new housing developments will only be permitted which exhibit a high quality of design and local distinctiveness.

Policy H19 (Site Layout and Amenities) – in Lancaster, Morecambe, Heysham and Carnforth, new residential development within existing housing areas will be permitted where there is no loss of open/green spaces, it does not adversely affect the amenities of nearby residents, it provides high standard of amenity, and it makes satisfactory provision for disposal of sewerage, waste water, servicing, access and car and cycle parking.

6.3 Lancaster District Core Strategy - adopted July 2008

Policy SC2 (Urban Concentration) - 90% of new dwellings and 98% of new retail floorspace to be provided in the urban areas of Lancaster, Morecambe, Heysham and Carnforth.

Policy SC5 (Achieving Quality in Design) - new development must reflect and enhance the positive characteristics of its surroundings, creating landmark buildings of genuine and lasting architectural merit.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 Principle of the Proposal

The proposal seeks to align the planning permission with the associated approved drawings. The applicant has sought to do this by maintaining the previously negotiated scheme (with its reduced height at the north east end of the building). Therefore with the exception of some additional window openings at basement level and a pitched roof arrangement rather than a terrace, the external appearance of the building remains unaltered. In terms of the loss of nursing accommodation, both treatment rooms and apartments, the business model for this type of “assisted living” is based on nurses visiting the residents rather than living with them. The residents’ medical needs are served from an external base, with some treatment available to them in their homes, otherwise off-site. However, this remains the same arrangement as before as some treatment is not possible outside equipped medical facilities, such as hospitals. However, the removal of these facilities does require the applicant to enter into a legal agreement to ensure that they can offer the care facilities that the residents may require as and when they need it.

7.2 Design / Amenity

The location of 2 apartments at basement level is not something that in planning terms is generally supported either on grounds of flooding or on outlook. However, in this case, the word “basement” (as stated on the plans) is slightly misleading. The 2 units in question are more at lower ground level than basement with half of the window above ground level looking out into a lightwell of up to 3 Page 35 metres in width. Whilst this may not be the most desirable of outlooks, it is deemed to be an acceptable level of amenity.

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 3 variations are required to the Unilateral Undertaking to accommodate the proposed changes to the scheme. Firstly, the definition of the affordable housing contribution refers to seven apartments (three 2-bed and four 1-bed apartments). However, there are only 3 1-bed units within the amended proposal. The variation should therefore refer to four 2-bed and three 1-bed apartments as part of the affordable housing contribution. Similarly, the definition of the application is incorrect in terms of the mix of accommodation, including the mention of nurses’ apartments. A Deed of Variation will be required to vary the Unilateral Undertaking as appropriate, including making reference to the 2009 permission and its subsequent amendment (this subject application).

The more significant change is the requirement for the developer to offer a care package from a specialist provider via a management agreement with each of the residents so that they can sign up for the care that they require when they need it.

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 For reasons set out above, the application can be supported subject to the signing and completion of the Deed of Variation.

Recommendation

That, subject to the signing and completion of the Deed of Variation covering the 3 points raised above in Section 8, Condition 2 of Planning Permission 09/00158/FUL BE VARIED to state:

2. The permission relates solely to the application as amended by the following plans:

P10 Rev L (Proposed site layout and basement plan) P11 Rev K (Proposed ground and first floor plans) P13 Rev H (Proposed elevations) P16 Rev A (Proposed second floor plan)

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and so that the local planning authority shall be satisfied as to the details."

Human Rights Act

Background Papers

None.

Page 36 AgendaAgenda Item Item 9 Committee Date Application Number

A9 13 December 2010 10/00820/FUL

Application Site Proposal

Middleton & Overton Sea Defences Various tidal flood protection works including earth embankments, erection of concrete wall and repair First Terrace and raising existing wall

Sunderland Point

Morecambe

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Sunderland Point Community Association Peter Gilchrist

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

29 October 2010 Awaiting additional information

Case Officer Mr Andrew Holden

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Approve subject to conditions

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 The application site is located on the Sunderland Point peninsular and centred on a row of dwellings known as Second Terrace. The area includes part of the Sunderland Point Conservation Area which also includes a number of listed buildings/structures. The peninsula comprises of improved pasture land and a number of dwellings. The dwellings are mainly grouped into two distinct terraces known as first and second row with a small number of outlying detached dwellings. Second Terrace has only a paved pedestrian access with vehicle access to the raised area of second terrace being gained via a short section on of shore crossing. The pasture land runs around all the dwellings and out to the promontory of Sunderland Point to the south.

1.2 The shoreline and beyond into the tidal estuary of is a internationally recognised area of ecological important and carries the statutory designations of a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protected Area (SPA) and a Ramsar site.

1.3 The proposed development site is broken into a number of distinct locations within the peninsula. The sites include two areas within the pasture and along two section of dry stone wall fronting the eastern side of the peninsula and the access road serving second row and the dwellings to the south.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The application is seeking to develop various tidal flood protection works including earth embankments, erection of concrete walls and repair of existing walls. There are two earth embankments proposed in the scheme. A short length of embankment 13m in length run in a north south orientation at the northern end of second terrace approx. 20m back from the access road. The second embankment again runs in a north-south orientation in the centre of the peninsula through pasture and meadows. The embankment is a low battered earth embankment which will be grassed over following profiling and completion. The embankment typically rises 600mm above the existing Page 37 grassland to a height of 7.25m above Ordnance Datum (AOD).

2.2 A number of short sections of stone wall are to be reinforced from the rear with the construction of a concrete wall where space is limited. The reminder of the lengths of strengthened walls is to be reinforced with just a grassed earth embankment. Two sections of wall are also to be repaired and the height of the walls raised by a single course of stone (approximately 200mm).

2.3 Several sections of hedgerow are to be removed to facilitate the embankment works. These are to be reinstated with appropriate species following completion of the works. The embankment material is to be sourced from within the adjacent fields. A Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) is currently being negotiated with Natural England. The agreement will include the reshaping of drains and excavation of scrapes to provide roosting/nesting areas. The HLS works will provide the materials.

2.4 All these works are considered to be a first phase of sea defence works for the area. The other works include additional embankments, construction of walls and the deposition of rock armour. These are not being considered as part of this current application.

3.0 Site History

3.1 The site has a limited planning history; planning consent was gained in 1994 for the improvement of existing sea defence embankment on a retired line between the east and west shores. This was part of a much larger flood defence scheme linking Overton.

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory consultees:

Statutory Consultee Response City Council - Endorse the aspirations of the Sunderland Point Community Association to improve Environmental the current standards of there sea defences. The proposals are relatively simple and Management practical measures which will improve the defences. Further to this Cabinet (when considering the adoption of the Shoreline Management Plan on the 9th November) formally expressed a wish that the Point be protected from erosion.

County Ecology Sunderland Point as a whole is known to support habitats and species of biodiversity value, including UK BAP Priority Habitats (e.g. coastal saltmarsh, coastal vegetated shingle, hedgerows), UK BAP Priority Species (e.g. Belted Beauty Moth), species listed as ‘vulnerable’ in the Provisional Lancashire Red Data List of Vascular Plants (e.g. Lesser water-plantain and Ray’s knotgrass), and a range of bird species (breeding and wintering). Sunderland Point is also immediately adjacent to Morecambe Bay SPA/SSSI and the Lune Estuary SSSI.

Original scheme - The applicant does not appear to have submitted any ecological information in support of this application, although the statement on Biodiversity and Geological Conservation does state that “the parts of the fields concerned are understood to be of no special value to biodiversity”. However it is not clear what has informed this.

The proposed works were also in relatively close proximity to ponds, which may or may not be suitable to support protected or priority species (e.g. great crested newts, common toads) and may or may not qualify as UK BAP Priority Habitats.

The proposals may thus have the potential for direct or indirect impacts on biodiversity. In order to demonstrate compliance with biodiversity planning policy, guidance and legislation, any potential impacts on biodiversity need to be clarified. Proposals for mitigation or compensation will be required if damaging impacts are likely. Any necessary mitigation or compensation should be informed by appropriate ecological surveys.

Page 38 Therefore it was recommended that the applicant should be required to submit further information to demonstrate that the proposals comply with biodiversity planning policy, guidance and legislation.

Amended scheme - Following the initial comments the site has been inspected by the County Ecologist and a discussions undertaken with the applicant. Subsequently, revised plans and additional information including a method statement have been provided.

The revisions indicate that the Community Association are now aware of the potential for impacts upon wildlife during works, and that a 'watching brief' for the presence of protected/priority species will be implemented prior/during to construction works.

The proposals will not result in any significant impacts on biodiversity. Provided construction is carried out in a careful manner, and any protected/priority species present are appropriately dealt with, then the proposals should be in accordance with the requirements of policy and protected species legislation.

Natural England The Design and Access statement and supporting planning statement stipulates that under the current application, Phase 1 works are neither on nor adjacent to the protected shoreline areas (SSSI, SAC, SPA).

For certification of this it would be useful to see a detailed scaled plan of the proposed scheme in the context of the surrounding protected areas. NE would also need to ensure that there will be no indirect impact on the protected areas through increased sediment runoff or siltation during excavation works and embankment creation, and no contamination through spillage of concrete and cement or deposition of debris during wall creation works. A full works method statement and pollution prevention statement should therefore be submitted.

We concur with the comments made by Lancashire County Council Ecologist in that further information is required to alleviate any concerns about impacts on habitats and species (since provided – see above). Environment No objection in principle to the proposed development but wish to make the following Agency comments:-

Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Land Drainage Byelaws, the prior written consent of the Agency is required for any proposed works or structures in, under, over or within 8 metres of the top of the bank of the River Lune, which is designated as a Main River watercourse. In particular, no trees or shrubs may be planted, nor fences, buildings, pipelines or any other structure erected over or within 8 metres of the top of any bank or retaining wall of the watercourse without our prior consent. Full details of such works, together with details of any proposed new surface water outfalls, which should be constructed entirely within the bank profile, must be submitted to us for consideration.

English Heritage The application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of the City Council’s own specialist conservation advice.

Conservation No objections in principle. Officer The proposed works will affect the character of the Conservation Area which is a Heritage Asset.

The access adjacent to 20 Second Terrace is adjoining a listed building. This is the quay marker stone of 1739 which is a heritage asset. There is a reference on one of the drawings to the use of stop logs for flood defence from the sea. Any details in this area need to be conditioned or clarified.

With regard to the alteration of boundary walls, they are to be raised in height by one course, and the walls are to be repaired. The drawings do not indicate if these are dry Page 39 stonewalls or stone rubble walls built in lime mortar. If it is mortar then any alterations works should use a hydraulic lime mortar.

Regarding the proposed details for the reinforcing of the field wall (Drawing SPCA 10- 4A). The use of visqueen to provide a separation from the stone rubble field wall and the concrete reinforcing wall is acceptable and reversible. One section of the concrete wall is left exposed and the concrete wall should ideally have a 'bush hammered' finish or an exposed aggregate finish in this local area.

No objections to the construction of the embankments against the new concrete wall or in the fields. They would prefer to see some earth topping to the top of the concrete retaining wall (Section A-A drawing SPCA 10 - 4A). It is assumed that the soil will have a grass/wild flower seed mix to encourage natural vegetation to develop.

Tree Protection No objections. Pre-application discussions were held and it has since been decided Officer that there will not be defence works undertaken in locations which may otherwise have affected garden trees.

It would be prudent for the applicants to ensure that no materials, machinery, equipment or vehicles are stored, or moved on soft ground within 10m of any trees to avoid damage to the soil profile with the potential for damage to tree root systems

County Archaeology The application has been noted and there are no archaeological comments to make on this.

United Utilities No objection in principle, subject to works not being undertaken within the easement areas or diversion of the mains.

Environmental No objection subject to ‘Hours of Construction’ condition. Health Parish Council No objections.

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 None received within the statutory timescales, any comments will be reported directly to committee.

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 Lancaster District Core Strategy

SC1 – Sustainable development seeking to ensure that new development is as sustainable as possible.

SC5 - Achieving Quality in Design seeks to ensure the development proposals help lead the North West in terms of urban design maintaining and improving the quality of development in conservation areas

SC7 – Development and the Risk of Flooding seeks to build sustainable communities by ensuring that new development is not exposed to unacceptable levels of flooding. Proposals for flood defence and management should ensure beneficial outcomes for the natural environment. Proposal which have an adverse effect on the European Site of Morecambe Bay will not be supported.

E1 – Environmental Capital seeks to improve the quality of the District’s environment protecting and enhancing nature conservation site, listed buildings and conservation areas.

6.2 Saved Policies of the Lancaster District Local Plan

E4 – Development tin the Countryside, development will be permitted which is in scale and keeping with the character of the landscape and is appropriate in terms of siting, scale, materials and design. In addition the development would not have significant adverse effect on nature conservation. Page 40

E11 – Development affecting Flood Plains, development within areas at risk of flooding will only be permitted where appropriate flood protection measures are in place and can be provided without adverse environmental impacts.

E16 – Nationally Protected Areas, development likely to damage or destroy a designated SSSI will not be permitted unless the development is of national importance.

E35 - Conservation Areas and their Surroundings, development proposal which would adversely affect important views into and across a conservation area or lead to an erosion of is historic fabric will not be permitted.

E38 – New building in Conservation Areas, development within conservation areas should reflect the scale, style and materials of surrounding buildings

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 Background

Tidal flooding risk has been a concern of the Sunderland Point community for many years. Damaging storms have been recorded in 1907, 1927, 1977 and 1983 and to a lesser degree in 1090, 1993 and 1997. Privately funded works have been under taken over the last century including gabions, rock armour, stone and concrete walls earth embankment and tide boards.

In 2003 Lancaster City Council part-funded (50%) resident floodgates, log barriers and gates to protect the front of Second Terrace. In 2008 additional funding via DEFRA was obtained to improve flood barriers to all front doors, air brick covers and drain flap values. Three gates at large openings along First Terrace were also funded.

All these works have significantly improved protection to the Lune Estuary frontage but the rear of the terraces remains exposed to the risk of tidal flooding. This current application will seek to reduce risk of tidal flooding to the rear of the properties, particularly those on Second Terrace.

7.2 Current Proposal

The current application has been developed by the applicant as a ‘stand alone’ scheme to provide immediate protection benefits to the village. Additional benefits would be gained if the desired additional phases are implemented in the future. The works are intended to complement the above- mentioned works undertaken in 2003 and 2008.

7.3 Planning analysis

The proposed development raises a number of significant planning considerations. The main issues are those of ecological impact of the proposals upon the application site and the neighbouring Morecambe Bay/Lune Estuary. Further consideration is the impact of the development upon the Sunderland Point Conservation Area and a number of listed buildings within and adjacent to Second Terrace.

Whilst the development proposal had been the subject of some prior discussion both Natural England and the County Ecologist raised concern that the initial submission did not fully address and consider the potential to impact the neighbouring Internationally protected areas or consider the potential of the development to impact the land within and adjacent to the application site. As a result the County Ecologist has met the applicant on site and worked through the approach need to minimise impact upon the application site and the neighbouring protected areas. The discussions have resulted in a detailed method statement covering all aspect of the construction and a revision to the location of the central embankment to minimise potential impact upon a pond at the southern end of the development site.

County Ecology have responded to the revised submission noting the amendments to the scheme, concluding that subject to appropriate conditions:-

The proposals will not result in any significant impacts on biodiversity. Provided Page 41 construction is carried out in a careful manner, and any protected/priority species present are appropriately dealt with, then the proposals should be in accordance with the requirements of policy and protected species legislation.

As indicated earlier in the report the site is located within the Sunderland Point Conservation Area and is close to a number of listed buildings. The applicant held initial pre-application discussions with the City Council’s Conservation Officer. The design approach taken by the application is considered to be sensitive with much of the works being hidden from any public views. The design of the grassed embankment will merge into the surrounding fields once grassed over and the reinforcement of the field boundaries are set down well below the level of the top of the wall. Where the width is limited a concrete support wall rather than an earth embankment will be constructed immediately to the rear of the wall. This detail is not ideal but is kept to a minimum length and will be hidden from most public aspects.

There are a number of listed dwellings in Second Terrace in addition to a recently listed quay marker at the southern end of the terrace. The development is not considered to impact upon the listed dwellings but care will be needed in developing the wall reinforcement close to the quay marker. The Conservation Officer is supportive of the scheme as it will help to protect a number of significant buildings and subject to the provision of additional details for specific areas of work he supports the development proposals.

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 N/A.

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 It is considered that the proposal represent an opportunity to develop simple and practical measures which will improve the defences. The design approach of the scheme is sensitive to the ecology and heritage aspect of the area. Subject to appropriate conditions including amended plans, construction methodology and watching briefs to development should be supported.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions: 1. Standard 3 year time limit 2. Development to be completed in accordance with the approved plans 3. Amended plans including revised embankment location and construction method statement dated 12 October 2010 4. Precise details of the hedgerow reinstatement including timing, species and enhancements to be submitted and agreed 5. The precise timing and the nature of the construction works to be agreed to minimise disturbance of nesting bird and amphibians 6. Unless otherwise agreed with the LPA the construction of the earth embankments shall be undertaken with materials sourced from within the adjacent fields as detailed in the Design and Access Statement 7. Precise details of the grass/wild flower mixture to be agreed 8. Samples of the natural stone and pointing (if any) to be agreed for the raised stone walls and the gabion infilling 9. Precise construction details of all works close to 20 Second Terrace and the listed Quay marker to be submitted and agreed 10. Precise details of the external finish to the exposed concrete walls to be submitted and agreed. ‘Bush hammered’ finished is preferred 11. Hours of construction 12. No materials, machinery, equipment or vehicles are stored, or moved on soft ground within 10m of any trees to avoid damage to the soil profile with the potential for damage to tree root systems

Page 42 Human Rights Act

Background Papers

None.

Page 43 Agenda Item Committee Date AgendaApplication Item Number 10

A10 13 December 2010 10/00858/RCN

Application Site Proposal

Capernwray Diving Centre Removal of condition no 3 on application 04/00877/OUT relating to accommodation of units Capernwray Road

Capernwray

Carnforth

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Ms Carol Hack Mr Neil Henderson

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

11 October 2010

Case Officer Mr Andrew Holden

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Refusal

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 Capernwray Diving Centre occupies a disused limestone quarry known as Jackdaw Quarry. The diving centre has been operational since 1994. The site lies approximately 1.5km north of Over Kellet and over 4km via the shortest route from the centre of Carnforth. The overall site occupies some 10 hectares. The centre of the site is occupied by the old quarry, now flooded where the main diving activities take place. Land to the north is taken over by a large car parking area. The west of the site between the quarry and Capernwray Road houses the residential dwelling, diving training centre, clubhouse/cafe and support facilities. A band of grassland runs around the north, east and south of the plot.

1.2 The whole of the site other than land occupied by the house, diving centre and car park is designated as a Biological Heritage Site. The quarry is surrounded by a mosaic of grassland and young tree growing on thin limestone soils and supporting a rich variety of plants and animals.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The application is seeking to remove condition No.3 on application 04/00877/OUT. This planning consent was the original outline permission for 15 holiday homes which was granted on appeal in December 2005. Condition 3 reads: -

The units of accommodation hereby approved shall be used as holiday accommodation for stays not exceeding 28 days only and shall not be used as the sole or main residence of any person or persons.

2.2 Removal of the condition will allow the residential units to be occupied in any manner, either by holidaymakers or permanent residential.

Page 44 3.0 Site History

3.1 In 2005 outline planning permission was granted on appeal for 15 holiday homes (application 04/00877/OUT). The pertinent permissions are set out below but the site has been subject to a number of other applications over the last 16 years supporting and developing the diving centre. Work has started on the site with five units fully complete and three have had ground works completed. Three of the units are sold - all cash buyers and work at the site has now ceased due to the difficulty in selling the remaining units.

Application Number Proposal Decision 04/00877/OUT Outline application for the erection of 15 holiday homes Approved on appeal Dec 2005 06/01077/REM Reserved Matters application for the erection of 8 holiday Approved November homes 2006 08/01308/REM Reserved Matters application for the erection of 7 holiday Approved January 2009 homes

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory consultees:

Statutory Consultee Response County Ecologist If the LPA is minded to approve this application, they recommend that the management plan required by Condition 8 of Approval 01/04/00877 should be amended to address potential ecological impacts arising from permanent residence. For example, this should include prevention of ecological impacts that could potentially be caused by domestic pets, gardening, changes in recreational use of the site etc. This matter could be addressed by planning condition.

United Utilities No consultation received within the statutory timescales.

County Highways No highway observations.

Lancashire Wildlife No consultation received within the statutory timescales. Trust Parish Council No consultation received within the statutory timescales.

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 To date, 5 letters have been received in respect of the development, objections have been raised on the following grounds: -

• Capernwray is a small community of around 30 dwellings. Object to this development becoming one of permanent residences, as this would be an unjustifiable increase of 50%. • Rural areas are lacking in affordable housing. This development can in no way be considered affordable housing. There was no justification for this type of housing development in this location and it does not meet a local need. It is likely that if the original application had been for permanent dwellings it would have been rejected. • The applicant has a history of not fulfilling previous condition, particularly the need to improve the Biological Heritage Site. • Approval of the development would set a precedent for al holiday parks in the area to become housing estates • There is already a viable business at the site; development plans for the holiday units will have to be held until such time as the economy and lending practices allow the development to continue. • The development site will become a housing site. • The area is not one for designated for open market housing Page 45 • The applicant has funded the purchase of a neighbouring field. Concerned that the development will lead to further expansion. • The development will add further strain upon the existing infrastructure. • Highway system is already stretched by the existing development • The development will further erode the peaceful nature of the hamlet.

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 National Planning Policy Statements

Planning Policy Statement 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development - Sets out Key principles for development to ensure that new development contribute to the delivery of sustainable principles. Development plans and planning policy should seek to deliver development which accords with the key principles particularly with respect to location and design. Location of development should be such that it promotes high quality design which includes appropriate location for development as well as high quality design.

Planning Policy Statement 3 – Housing - Provides guidance upon the location of new residential development. Paragraph 16 includes guidance that new development shall be easily accessible and well connected to public transport and housing is developed in suitable locations which offer a range of community facilities and with good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure.

Planning Policy Statement 7 – Sustainable development in the rural areas – this has a series of ‘Key Principles’ (underpinned by the core principle of ‘sustainable development’) which are as follows:

(i) Decisions on development proposals should be based on sustainable development principles, ensuring an integrated approach to the consideration of:

• Social inclusion, recognising the needs of everyone; • Effective protection and enhancement of the environment; • Prudent use of natural resources; and, • Maintaining high and stable levels of economic growth and employment.

(ii) Good quality, carefully-sited accessible development within existing towns and villages should be allowed where it benefits the local economy and/or community (e.g. affordable housing for identified local needs), maintains or enhances the local environment, and does not conflict with planning policies.

(iii) Accessibility should be a key consideration in all development decisions. Most developments which are likely to generate large numbers of trips should be located in or next to towns or other service centres that are accessible by public transport, walking and cycling, in line with the policies set out in PPG13, Transport. Decisions on the location of other developments in rural areas should, where possible, give people the greatest opportunity to access them by public transport, walking and cycling, consistent with achieving the primary purpose of the development.

(iv) New building development in the open countryside away from existing settlements, or outside areas allocated for development in development plans, should be strictly controlled; the Government’s overall aim is to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources and so it may be enjoyed by all.

(v) Priority should be given to the re-use of previously-developed (‘brownfield’) sites in preference to the development of greenfield sites, except in cases where there are no brownfield sites available, or these brownfield sites perform so poorly in terms of sustainability considerations (for example, in their remoteness from settlements and services) in comparison with greenfield sites.

Specific guidance on the location of development within the PPS states under paragraph 3 :-

“Away from larger urban areas, planning authorities should focus most new development in or near Page 46 to local service centres where employment, housing (including affordable housing), services and other facilities can be provided close together. This should help to ensure these facilities are served by public transport and provide improved opportunities for access by walking and cycling. These centres (which might be a country town, a single large village or a group of villages) should be identified in the development plan as the preferred location for such development”.

6.2 Lancaster District Core Strategy

The following policies are especially relevant:

SC1 – Sustainable Development – seek to ensure that new development proposals are as sustainable as possible, minimise greenhouse gas emissions and are adaptable to the likely effects of Climate Change. In assessing whether a development proposal or allocation is as sustainable as possible, the Council will apply the following principles;

Location (Core Strategy and Allocations):

• It is convenient to walk, cycle and travel by public transport between the site and homes, workplaces, shops, schools, health centres, recreation, leisure and community facilities; and • The site is previously developed; and • The current use, appearance or condition of the site cause adverse environmental impacts which could be alleviated through development; • The site can be developed without incurring unacceptable flood risk or drainage problems; and • The site can be developed without the loss of or harm to features of significant biodiversity, landscape, archaeological or built heritage importance; and • The proposed use would be appropriate to the character of the landscape.

Design Construction and Use (Development Control Policies)

• It is convenient to walk or cycle around the site; and • The proposal re-uses existing buildings; and • The proposal uses locally sourced, sustainable or recycled construction materials, sustainable waste management practices and minimises construction waste; and • The proposal would clean up contamination and other environmental problems associated with the site; and • The proposal uses energy efficient design and orientation, energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies; and • The proposal has an acceptable impact on drainage systems and uses Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) where appropriate; and • The proposal is integrated with the character of the landscape and, where appropriate, enhances biodiversity, increases tree-cover, provides for archaeological investigation and creates publicly accessible open space.

SC3 – Rural Communities – seeks to build healthy sustainable communities by empowering rural communities to develop local vision And identity, identify and meet local needs and manage change in the rural economy and landscape.

An allowance of 10% of new homes and 5% of employment is made to accommodate development to meet local needs in villages. This will be focused in villages that have five basic services. v At present these are:

• Bolton-le-Sands • Caton and Brookhouse • Halton • Hornby • Wray • Slyne-with-Hest • Silverdale • Galgate Page 47

Development outside these settlements will require exceptional justification.

In Rural Areas and in smaller, more remote villages in particular, the Council will work with the Local Strategic Partnership, Parish Councils and other local stakeholders to:

• Help Parish Councils to develop as local community leaders and engage in spatial planning and Local Strategic Partnership processes; • Protect, conserve and enhance rural landscapes and the distinctive characteristics of rural settlements; • Identify housing needs and opportunities for meeting them and ensuring that any housing permitted is directly related to those needs; • Identify local employment needs and opportunities for meeting them; • Encourage local involvement in the provision and management of essential rural facilities and resist development proposals which would result in their loss; • Encourage appropriate employment development within villages including home-working, particularly by supporting increased broadband availability; • Promote and market sensitive tourist attractions, accommodation and catering with particular emphasis on the potential of farm diversification; • Enhance sensitive recreation and develop walking and cycling networks.

SC4 – Meeting the District’s Housing Requirements – this sets out the principles which will ensure that Housing Needs are met, through Housing Allocations and through determining Planning Applications, in a way which builds Sustainable Communities. In doing so, the Council will:

• Identify a housing land supply sufficient to meet the Housing Requirement of 7,200 dwellings (net of clearance replacement) in the period 2003-2021 as established by Policy L4 (Table 7.1) of the Regional Spatial Strategy;

• Manage the phased release of housing land such that the number of recorded dwelling completions is closely aligned to the Annual Average Dwelling Requirement of 400 dwellings as established by Policy L4 (Table 7.1) of the Regional Spatial Strategy;

The Council will both identify a housing land supply and release sites via the granting of planning consent in accordance with the Core Strategy principles of:

• Urban Concentration, as described in Policy SC2 • Sustainable Development, as described in Policy SC1, and, • Supporting regeneration within the Regeneration Priority Areas identified in Policy ER2.

The Council will aim to maximise the opportunities offered by the development of new dwellings to:

• Redress imbalances in the local housing market; • Achieve housing that genuinely addresses identified local housing need; and, • Secure units of “in-perpetuity” affordable housing.

E1 – To improve the district’s environment – The Council will safeguard and enhance the District’s Environmental Capital by applying national and regional planning policies and:

• Protecting and enhancing nature conservation sites, urban greenspaces, allotments, landscapes of national importance, listed buildings, conservation areas and archaeological sites; • Protecting the North Lancashire Green Belt; • Encouraging development which makes the minimum and most efficient use of finite natural resources including land, buildings soil, non-renewable energy, water and raw materials; • Resisting development in places where environmental risks including from flooding cannot be properly managed; • Taking full account of the needs and wishes of communities and, in particular, vulnerable and disadvantaged groups such as the elderly, young people and people with disabilities; Page 48 • Using all practicable means to make places more pleasant and liveable with safer, cleaner, more legible and more attractive streets and spaces; • Resisting development which would have a detrimental effect on environmental quality and public amenity; • Ensuring that development in the city of Lancaster and other historic areas conserves and enhances their sense of place; • In areas where environmental quality is unsatisfactory such as Poulton and the West End of Morecambe, seeking development of a quality which will raise standards and help to deliver a step change in their environmental quality and sense of place; • Identifying how habitats in urban and rural areas will be protected and, where possible, enhanced in extent and in their diversity of wildlife species; • Directing development to locations, where previously developed land can be recycled and re-used, dereliction cleared and contamination remediated; and • Conserving and enhancing landscapes.

6.3 Saved Policies of the Lancaster District Local Plan

The following policies are especially relevant.

H7 – Has been partly superseded but seeks to ensure that development of new rural housing is directed to appropriate rural villages. The policy seeks to ensure that development is appropriate in terms of design, density, does not adversely affect the character of the settlement or neighbouring amenities and makes satisfactory provision for access, parking and servicing. The list of appropriate villages has been updated within policy SC3 of the Lancaster Core Strategy. The list of villages has been redefined on the basis of sustainability and the presence of essential services within the village.

H8 – The policy seeks to permit new dwellings which fall outside the listed villages to those which are essential to the needs of agriculture or forestry or other uses appropriate in the rural area. The dwellings should be sited to minimise impact in the area in terms of design, materials and landscape and be consistent with meeting the employment needs of the occupier.

H10 - Has been partly superseded but seeks to ensure that an element of affordable housing provision is developed within housing scheme over certain thresholds. Both the threshold and the contribution percentage is subject of policy update contained within the Lancaster Core Strategy and in particular policy SC4 and its updates.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 The applicant has indicated in the submission document that the application has become necessary because the current financial climate has resulted in a reluctance of the financial institutions to lend monies on development with holiday restrictions. A letter included in the submission documents from a mortgage specialist indicates that before the ‘credit crunch’ there were around 15 providers happy to lend monies of properties with holiday restrictions. In today’s climate that number has reduced to 1 or 2 but none are willing to lend on a value in excess of 65% of the total for the property and for no more than one third of the overall development. This reluctance to provide finance has shown itself in a number of potential clients for the development having offers withdrawn because of the planning condition/holiday restriction.

7.2 The inability to sell the units has meant that the Diving Centre is unwilling to borrow further to fund the remainder of the build. As a result they are in the unsatisfactory position of the development being unfinished with no prospect of completion unless the lending environment improves. Work has ceased on the site and staff have been laid off. Removal of the occupation restriction will enable finance to be forthcoming and the development to be completed.

7.3 Whilst one can empathise with the position the applicant finds herself in the application has to be considered on its planning merits and against planning policy and guidance contained within the national Planning Policy Statements. This position has been recognised within the application submission with the argument being raised that the development is both in a sustainable location and will in practice still be occupied by holidaymakers rather than permanent residents.

Page 49 7.4 The argument put forward by the applicant is that the site is only 1 mile from Over Kellet and that the village has many of the key services identified as being required to provide a sustainable location. It is argued that the village is in easy reach from the site by bicycle or on foot and from the village a regular bus service is available to Carnforth and Lancaster.

7.5 In respect of the occupancy the applicant considers that the units are likely to be occupied by holidaymakers because of the nature of the accommodation. It is designed for holiday use and is located within the gorunds of the diving centre. The diving centre is busy at weekends and holiday periods, the very time when permanent occupiers would be seeking the opportunity to relax and as result would not be appealing to permanent occupants.

7.6 Planning policy in respect to the location of housing is clealy defined and driven by the key principles laid down in Planning Policy Statements PPS1, PPS3 and PPS7. The guidance seeks to ensure development is as sustainable as possible and aids the development and success of rural communites. The location of housing is identified as a key element of sustainable development. Local plan policy reflects the guidance laid down in the national planning statements both within the saved polices of the Lancaster Dsitrcit Local Plan (saved policies H7 and H8) and the key policy framework set out in the Lancaster Core Strategy (policies SC1, SC3 and SC4).

7.7 Paragraph 6.2 of this report discusses Core Strategy Policy SC1 and the sustainability/locational principles contained therein. The location of development is one that is convenient to walk, cycle and travel by public transport between the site, homes, workplaces, shops, health centres, recreation, leisure, and community facilites. Policy SC3 develops the position for rural houisng setting out eight key villages within which new housing development would be expected to be focused. The villages are spread throughout the District but critically have five key services; a GP, primary school, a food shop, post office and bus stop. Over Kellet is not one of the identified villages as it does not have a General Practioner. However, it does have all all the other services in additon to a public house, church and village hall. It is also aknowledged that Carnforth has additional and larger facilities including a general practioners’ surgery.

7.8 A key issue is that practicality and sustainabiltiy of the application site and its relationship to both Over Kellet and Carnforth. Over Kellet - whilst having some services - lies 1 mile away from the application site. Capernwray Road links the application site to Over Kellet. The road is typical of outlying rural roads; it has no footways, is narrow in width, is derestricted and has poor horizontal and vertical alignment. In short, the road is not one which would be considered practical for everyday travelling by cycle or on foot as suggested by the applicant. It is considered that occupiers of the site would regard this route as impractical and dangerous to travel on by either foot or cycle and in practice would be forced to access any of the key services by private transport as no public transport passes close to the site. Carnforth lies over 4 miles away and would have similar issues. As a consequence the location of the development cannot be regarded as sustainable and consequently is contrary to locational policy context within the Lancaster District Local Plan and Lancaster Core Strategy.

7.9 The applicant has argued that the units would not be occupied on a permanent basis because of the nature of the accommodtion and its location within the diving centre. On a principle level, the removal of the restriction has to be considered aganst planning policy and despite the arguments put forward by the applicant, the site units could and would be occupied as permanent dwellings. As oultined ealier in the report, the location of the site is outside of the defined villages would result in the development of open market housing in locations which are contrary to polices H7 and H8 of the Lancaster District Local Plan and SC1 and SC3 of the Lancaster Core Strategy and could not be supported.

7.10 On a practical level, the applicant has argued that the location and form of the development would detract from permanent occupation. However, in practice the units are well-designed two-bed bungalows with their own defined and reasonably generous curtilages with private parking spaces and open, elevated virews over the diving acitivies as well as the open countryside. Access to many of the residential units (those currently under construction) is wholly separate from that of the diving activites and ultilises a separate access serving only the approved residental wardens dwelling and the proposed holiday units. It is considered that rather than be regarded as a inappropriate place to have permanent accommodation many, if not, all of the units would be attractive to permanent occupancy. As a consequence approval of the removal of the occupation restriction would be contrary to polices H7 and H8 of the Lancaster District Local Plan and SC1 and SC3 of the Page 50 Lancaster Core Strategy and could not be supported.

7.11 The issue of affordable housing provision has not been addressed or put forward in the submission statement by the applicant but should the removal of the occupation restriction be considered suitable, the application would in practice lead to the development of fifteen open market houses in the rural area. Policy SC4 seeks to ensure that new development addresses all housing needs and in part secures the provison of affordable housing. The current policy position seeks a 30% contribution of affordable homes on development sites of 10 dwellings or above (in this case 5 dwellings). The current application makes no such offer of such provision or contribution to off-site provision in a more suitable location. The lack of such provision is contrary to the aims of Policy SC4 and as such the development should not be supported.

7.12 The site is identified as a Biological Heritage Site (BHS) and this was an issue which was the subject of the original refusal of the development in 1995. The Inspector, in allowing the appeal, noted the presence of a rich and varied habitat but acknowleged the wider beneft of the holiday scheme in supporting local tourism and developing a valuable asset for the District. Condition 8 of the outline approval sought the provision of a detailed managment plan for the BHS. The County Ecologist has acknowleged the presence of the plan and would seek variations to the plan to secure amendments to the management plan to address potential ecological impacts from the changing naturing of the use of the site by permanent residents. This could be addressed by a planning condition if the application were to be supported but as the application is recommended for refusal further details have not been pursued.

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 N/A.

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 For the reasons detailed above the application to remove the occupancy restriction is considered to result in 15 open market houses within a wholly unsustainable location, detached from any key services. In addition, no offer has been provided for the provision of - or contribution towards - affordable housing. The development in its current form is considered to be contrary to policies H7, H8 and H10 of the Lancaster District Local Plan and Policies SC1, SC3 and SC4 of the Lancaster Core Strategy and should not be supported.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The application is seeking to develop open market housing in an unsustainable location outside identified sustainable rural settlements contrary to policies H7, H8 and H10 of the Lancaster District Local Plan and Policies SC1, SC3 and SC4 of the Lancaster Core Strategy.

2. The application seeks to develop 15 open market houses in a rural location without the offer or provision of affordable housing as such it is considered to be contrary to policy H10 of the Lancaster District Local Plan and PolicySC4 of the Lancaster Core Strategy.

Human Rights Act

This recommendation has been reached after consideration o f the provisions of The Human Rights Act. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the issues arising do not appear to be of such magnitude to override the responsibility of the City Council to regulate land use for the benefit of the community as a whole, in accordance with national law.

Background Papers

None.

Page 51 Agenda Item Committee Date AgendaApplication Item Number 11

A11 Monday 13 th December 2010 10/01118/FUL

Application Site Proposal

Wenning House Installation of approximately 120 solar panels to south and west roof slope Forge Lane

Halton

Lancaster

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Ms Anne Chapman N/A

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

10 January 2011 None

Case Officer Mr Karl Glover

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Approval

(i) Procedural Matters

This application is one which would normally be dealt with under delegated powers but has instead been referred to the Planning Committee as the applicant is Councillor Chapman.

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 The application site is a large, two-storey, contemporary commercial unit located within the Halton Mills site approximately 200m south of Low Road on the corner of Forge Lane, north of the River Lune within the village settlement of Halton. Wenning House is made up of white rendered block brick under a shallow pitched Goosewing Grey profiled steel-clad roof. Boundary treatment consists of 2m-high galvanised steel post fencing and a natural stone wall to the rear.

1.2 The surrounding area consists of a mixture of residential properties to the north beyond an open agricultural field, and a number of occupied and vacant residential dwellings to the west which are also part of the make up the Halton Mills site. Adjacent to the subject building is a similar sized commercial unit which is made up of similar materials. Access can be gained to Wenning House from either Forge Lane or Mill Lane.

1.3 The site is allocated as a Rural Employment Opportunity Site and County Geological Heritage Site in the Lancaster District Local Plan, and is also located within the North West Flood Zone 2 and 3

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The application is for the installation of 120 solar panels to be mounted to the southern and western roof slopes of the building. Each individual solar panel will measure approximately 1m x 1.65m and are to be made up of glass covered monocrystaline.

Page 52 3.0 Site History

3.1 The Halton Mills site is subject to a significant amount of planning history, the most relevant applications related to Wenning House are listed below.

Application Number Proposal Decision 05/00562/REM Erection of two new B1/B2 commercial units Permitted

Revised design for industrial/commercial unit approved Permitted 06/00786/REM under application 05/00562/REM

10/00471/NMA Non material amendment to approved application Permitted 06/00786/REM ( Alteration to canopy and render colour)

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory consultees:

Statutory Consultee Response Parish Council At the time of compiling this report no comments have been received.

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 At the time of compiling this report no comments have been received.

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 Planning Policy Statements (PPS)

PPS1 (Planning and Climate Change Supplement) indicates that planning has a key role to play in tackling climate change and securing progress towards the UK’s emission targets. It also states that planning authorities should provide a framework that promotes and encourages renewable and low-energy generation and as such policies should be designed to promote and not restrict renewable technologies and supporting infrastructure. Subsequently, applicants for renewable energy development should not be required to demonstrate the overall need for renewable energy, nor should the energy justification for a proposed development in a particular location be questioned.

PPS22 (Renewable Energy) is the overarching national policy that sets out Governments stance on renewable energy development and positive steps towards delivering Governments commitment to tackling climate change. PPS22 sets out a number of key principles that planning authorities should adhere to when considering applications for renewable energy developments. The criteria includes:

• Anticipated effects on local amenity resulting from development, construction and operation of schemes (e.g. air quality, atmospheric emissions, noise, odour, water pollution and disposal of waste); • Acceptability of the location/scale of the proposal and its visual impact in relation to the character and sensitivity of the surrounding landscape, including cumulative impact; • Effect on the region’s World Heritage Sites and other national and internationally designated sites or areas, and their settings but avoiding the creation of buffer zones; • Effect of development on nature conservation features, biodiversity and geodiversity, including sites, habitats and species, and which avoid significant adverse effects on sites of international nature conservation importance by assessment under the Habitats Regulations; • Potential benefits of development on the local economy and local community; • Effect on agriculture and other land based industries.

Page 53

6.2 Lancaster District Core Strategy (LDCS) - adopted July 2008

Policy ER7 (Renewable Energy) seeks to maximise the proportion of energy generated in the District from renewable sources where compatible with other sustainability objectives. The need for renewable energy must be balanced against landscape impacts, local amenity, habitats and species, farming and land based industries and local transport networks.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 The roof of the company known as ‘Like Technologies’ who are based in Wenning House, has been selected as a donor roof space for LESS (Local and Effective Sustainable Solutions). LESS will be renting their roof space and in exchange Like Technologies will receive free electricity from the solar panels. This will be a long term relationship covered by a 25 year lease.

7.2 The profits generated from the Government’s clean energy cash back scheme for the photovoltaic system will be used to help people in Halton improve the energy efficiency of their homes and reduce carbon emissions. The dimensions and sizes of the panels as listed above in the proposal section show the expected maximum roof coverage as final details have yet to be confirmed as the tendering process has yet to be completed.

7.3 The key issues for Members to consider in determining this application are:

• Whether the solar panels are seen to be acceptable in terms of PPS22 and LDCS Policy ER7;

• Whether the solar panels are acceptable in terms of the visual amenity of the locality .

7.4 With regard to compliance with PPS22 and Policy ER7 the proposed 120 panels are seen to contribute and provide a substantial form of renewable energy. The visual impact of the solar panels is significantly reduced given the low pitch of the roof on Wenning House and its location. The only existing nearby residential properties which will have a view of the panels are located on Forgewood Drive which is located to the north east of the site. A broken tree belt of protected trees provides some screening from these properties but the distance is seen to be substantial enough as to not have any adverse or detrimental visual impact.

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 None.

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 It is considered that the scale and siting of the solar panels will not impact unduly on the adjacent unit or the amenity of the surrounding area. The development is seen to be appropriate and furthermore benefit the local community within the village of Halton. In conclusion the PV panels are seen to comply with the above local and national policies and are therefore recommended for approval.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1) Standard time limit 2) Development to accord to plans

Page 54 Human Rights Act

Background Papers

None.

Page 55 Agenda Item Committee Date AgendaApplication Item Number 12

A12 13 December 2010 10/00949/RENU

Application Site Proposal

Slynedales Renewal of planning application 07/01144/FUL for the Lancaster Road proposed demolition of single storey flat roofed Slyne extension and replacement with 3 storey pitched roof Lancaster extension, erection of an Arts and Crafts studio and change of use of land to form new car parking area

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Cancercare Michael Harrison

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

10 November 2010 Rise in application numbers

Case Officer Mr Andrew Drummond

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Approval

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 The application site is Slynedales, a detached three storey property of stone construction with slate roof over, situated approximately 140m to the west of Slyne Road on higher ground at the end of a shared driveway. The property has a significant amount of associated external space which for the most part is established garden, boasting a large proportion of mature trees. The site generally rises from east to west, though it does also fall away towards the southern boundary. There is also an existing parking area immediately to the south of the building which accommodates 33 vehicles.

1.2 The application property operates as a Cancer Care Service offering patient/ family support and specialist professional therapies. The area is mixed in character with the land to the south of the site access road occupied by St John’s Hospice and the land to the north by Beaumont College, a residential further education centre.

1.3 The Lancaster District Local Plan indicates that the application site is within a Countryside Area and forms part of the North Lancashire Green Belt.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The application seeks an extension of time to implement the extant planning permission (07/01144/FUL).

2.2 The 2007 application was granted planning consent to expand and improve the current facilities to create an additional 388 sq.m of floorspace. The proposed works involve the demolition of a single- storey flat roofed extension within the courtyard to the north of the main building, and its replacement with a three storey pitched roofed extension to form a reception and waiting area, administration office and toilets to ground floor, therapy rooms to first floor, with a bridge link to the adjoining garden area at the rear of the site, and a further office room within the roof space. A linking covered walkway is also proposed within the confines of the courtyard to the north of the main building. This will be of slate roofed, stone wall construction and will provide a covered access from the main building to the existing child therapy unit sited immediately to the north. Page 56

2.3 In addition to this, the application also involves the creation of a new parking area on garden land adjoining the northern boundary of the child therapy unit and the replacement of a detached timber arts and crafts portable building to the rear of the site with an new arts and crafts studio providing larger studio facilities that will enable storage of materials and archives.

The proposed arts and crafts studio whilst larger in scale constitutes a replacement structure and utilises the same site as the existing structure, adjacent what is at present the main car park. Due to the significant difference in land levels to the rear of the application site this building is part single storey, part two-storey in height. The change in levels between the car park and the garden enables a basement to be formed which will provide the main entrance to the studio from the car park and accommodate an archive store and toilets. The upper floor will form the main studio space which will have a level access to the lawn area and footpath to the north.

3.0 Site History

3.1 Slynedales was originally built as a private residence set in the middle of approximately 14 acres of open pasture. In the early 1960s it operated as a Convent Primary School followed by a Residential Secure Unit for girls with educational and emotional difficulties between 1970 and 1999. The site was then acquired by the applicant in 1990 in a semi derelict condition and was opened as a Support Centre for cancer patients, their carers and families in 1991 following refurbishment.

A number of more recent applications relating to this site have previously been determined by the Local Planning Authority. These include:

Application Number Proposal Decision 07/01144/FUL Proposed demolition of single storey flat roofed extension Approved and replacement with 3 storey pitched roof extension, erection of an Arts and Crafts studio and change of use of land to form new car parking 04/01120/FUL Erection of a first floor extension to courtyard therapy unit Approved 03/01037/CU Change of use of caretakers flat on 2nd floor to offices Approved 95/00726/FUL Erection of a temporary portable type building for use as a Approved and Craft therapy centre. subsequently renewed.

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory and internal consultees:

Consultee Response County Highways No further highway comments on the proposal, except to reiterate the need for compliance with Conditions 5, 6 and 9 of the Planning Permission granted to application, 07/01144/FUL, dated 10 October 2007.

Environmental No objections. Health Tree Officer No comments received within the statutory consultation period – these will be reported verbally.

Slyne -with-Hest The Parish Council does not have any comments to make on this application. Parish Council

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 No correspondence has been received at the time of compiling this report. Any comments subsequently received will be reported verbally.

Page 57 6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 National Planning Policy Statements (PPS) and Guidance notes (PPG)

PPG2 (Green Belts) - the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the most important attribute of Green Belts is their openness.

PPG13 (Transport) - encourages sustainable travel, ideally non-motorised forms of transport such as walking and cycling, but also other means like public transport. The use of the car should be minimised. This can be encouraged by the location, layout and design of new developments. The planning system has a substantial influence on the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and occupants of vehicles through the design and layout of footpaths, cycleways and roads.

6.2 Lancaster District Local Plan - adopted April 2004 (saved policies)

Policy E1 (Green Belt) - establishes the extent of the Green Belt and this is emphasised by national and regional policies.

Policy E4 (Countryside Area) sets out the criteria for assessment of development within the Countryside Area, stating that proposal must be in scale and keeping with the character of the landscape.

6.3 Lancaster District Core Strategy - adopted July 2008

Policy E1 (Environmental Capital) - safeguarding and enhancing the District's Environmental Capital by, amongst other things, protecting the North Lancashire Green Belt.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 Green Belt

All tiers of planning policy seek to protect the openness of the Green Belt in order to safeguard the character of the countryside and check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas.

The principle of extending the main building and replacing the arts and crafts studio in the manner proposed is considered acceptable in relation to Green Belt and Countryside Area saved policies of the Local Plan. The proposal relates to the previously developed section of the site that falls well within the established and landscaped curtilage of the property meaning the development will not adversely affect the quality of the landscape or the openness of the Green Belt.

7.2 Design

The alterations to the main body of the building will result in the removal of an existing unsympathetic flat roofed extension sited within the courtyard to the north of the building and will secure it replacement with a larger but more sympathetic addition that has been designed to respect the character of the main property and the wider countryside area. The proposal is considered appropriate in terms of its scale and massing, utilising external materials of natural stone and slate to match existing, as well as, vertical sliding sash windows with details to match those existing on-site. The extension will result in the removal of one of the three stone chimney stacks on site. Whilst this is regrettable its removal is essential to the viability of the proposal and given its siting to the rear of the building, on balance, its loss is not considered to have a detrimental impact on the character of Page 58 the application property.

A more contemporary design solution has been chosen for the new entrance, which consists of a fully glazed curtain wall formed behind the existing stone courtyard archway. This access will form the main entrance to the centre and has been sensitively designed to enable effective use and access to this area whilst maintaining the appearance of archway, which forms an important architectural feature of the building. In the interest of the appearance of the building appropriate conditions are recommended to ensure that all external materials and surface finishes are agreed by the Local Planning Authority, as well as, all window/door recesses.

For the most part the external materials proposed for the studio contrast with the main building but are complementary in nature. The basement is of render finish with vertical timber boarding and metal window frames. The roof is pitched and hipped in order to reduce the overall bulk of the building and finished in natural slate in order to maintain a visual link with the main building.

7.3 Landscaping

As a whole the site benefits from extensive tree cover with a number of individual, mature tree specimens and groups of trees established in and around the boundaries of the proposed development area. Following an arboricultural assessment of the site the arts and craft building was re-site approximately 1.9 metres to the west to ensure that the replacement structure does not threaten the health or viability of the mature trees on site. In light of this and in the interest of appearance of the locality a condition is recommended to ensure the protection of trees during construction works including the mature Purple Leaf Beech tree to the east of the arts and crafts building and a group of Board Leaf Sycamores between the existing building, proposed development and the car park area. Further to this a condition is also recommended requiring a landscaping scheme for the site, relating particularly to the area of banking and footpaths surrounding the arts and crafts studio and the new parking areas.

7.4 Parking

The site is considered to be of low accessibility and has a current parking provision of 33 spaces, 3 of which are mobility spaces. The application proposes a total of 50 spaces, 6 of which would be mobility spaces. These will be accommodated within the existing area of hardstanding to the south of the main building and within a garden area immediately to the north of the property.

There is a significant need to provide improved access and additional parking spaces for Cancer Care clients, most of whom can only reasonably gain access by car. The increase in referrals to the unit in recent years has resulted in more visitors to the site which has in turn has increased parking pressures. Provisions are also needed for staff that are required to use their vehicles to perform their job role.

The new parking area is sited to the north of the building on an area of garden within the established curtilage of the property. Whilst its construction in this location will result in the removal of a large proportion of garden area, relevant national and local planning policies enable the expansion of facilities within Green Belt in exceptional circumstances. In this instance the proposed parking area is sited within the established curtilage of the property and is not considered to materially affect the openness of the Green Belt, nor will it result in the unrestricted extension of development into the open countryside. The additional parking provision is acceptable to County Highways and in light of the exceptional need for additional parking it is considered that in this instance there is sufficient justification for the creation of additional parking facilities in this location. In the interest of sustainable transport appropriate conditions are recommended to ensure the implementation of the approved Travel Plan and the provision of bicycle and motorcycle parking on site.

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 None.

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 The application seeks to improve the existing facilities on site and provide enhanced access thorough the development. The proposal is well screened and contained with the established Page 59 curtilage of the property. The Local Planning Authority is satisfied that the proposed extensions, alterations and the new parking area are acceptable in relation to their impact upon the Green Belt and Countryside Area. Members are therefore advised that this application can be supported, subject to appropriate conditions.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard 3 year timescale 2. Amended plans 3. Development to accord with plans 4. External materials and surface finishes - detail required 5. Window and door recesses 6. Provision and retention of parking layout in accordance with plans 7. Implementation of approved Travel Plan 8. Bicycle and motorcycle parking - details required 9. Landscaping scheme - details required 10. Retention of trees and hedges 11. Development to be carried out in accordance with a submitted Arboricultural Method Statement 12. Tree protection scheme 13. Surface water regulation scheme - details required 14. Hours of construction - 0800-1800 Monday to Saturday

Human Rights Act

This recommendation has b een reached after consideration of the provisions of The Human Rights Act. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the issues arising do not appear to be of such magnitude to override the responsibility of the City Council to regulate land use for the benefit of the community as a whole, in accordance with national law.

Background Papers

None.

Page 60 AgendaAgenda Item Item 13 Committee Date Application Number

A13 13 December 2010 10/01122/CU

Application Site Proposal

Green Dragon Hotel Change of use of part of the ground floor to self Main Road contained flat and replacement of existing windows Galgate throughout with uPVC windows and the creation of a Lancaster new access.

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Mr Ismeal Thagia Mr Abdul Saboor

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

30 December 2010 None

Case Officer Mr Richard Bamforth

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Refusal

(i) Procedural Matter

This application would normally be dealt with under the scheme of delegation. However, an immediate relative of the applicant works for the local authority and the application is therefore presented to the Planning Committee for determination.

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 The application site relates to the Green Dragon Hotel/Public House situated immediately on the north western side of the crossroads in the village centre of Galgate. The crossroads form the junction of the main A6 highway with Salford Road to the west and Stoney Lane to the east.

1.2 The subject property is set within a triangular plot, being broadest to the southern end with Salford Road and narrowing to the northernmost point. The property is orientated north-east/south west, with the south western gable abutting onto Salford Road. To the front elevation with the A6 is a small area of asphalted ground which is within the curtilage of the property and referred to as the 'beer garden' within the submission. This area is physically undefined, but adjoins directly onto the pavement.

1.3 The main part of the public house forms a detached, two storey building. The ground floor area forms the public house with a bar, kitchen, lounge and dining areas. The first floor area forms a 3+ bed flat which is ancillary to the ground floor area.

1.4 The two storey building is constructed with coursed natural stone, beneath a natural slate roof which is hipped to the southern side and gabled to the northern. The two storey element of the building exhibits natural stone detailing to the window surrounds, quoins, corbels and lead lined guttering. The windows and door are constructed in timber with a painted finish. The windows are top- opening, 'mock' sash.

1.5 Attached to the rear of the building is a single storey extension currently utilised as a garage and plant room. This is constructed in random stone with stone quoins, beneath an asymmetrical roof. There is a galvanised roller shuttered opening onto the pavement with Salford Road. Attached to the Page 61 northern gable of the main building is a single storey extension currently utilised as a lounge area and toilets. This part is constructed in rubble stone, beneath a dual pitched slate roof with four window openings onto the side with the A6. These windows have a vertical emphasis. Attached to the gable of this single storey element is a timber framed, slated roofed smoking shelter. Extending to the northern side of this is a narrow triangular concrete area which serves as an amenity space for the public house which is currently bordered by a stone wall to the A6 and No.2 Salford Road. There is a pedestrian gated access onto the A6 with a drop kerb facilitating the previous use.

1.6 Adjacent to the site along the northern side of Salford Road is a row of residential two-storey, stone cottages with a mix of timber and uPVC windows. To the southern side of Salford Road is a similar row of terraced cottages, with a mixed residential/non-residential use (including Fish & Chip shop, barbers, and beauty salon). Once again the windows are a combination of timber and uPVC. On the opposite (eastern) side of the main A6 to the application site are two residential properties and the New Inn (public house) all of which have timber framed windows. Opposite the site, to the southern side of Stoney Lane is the local Spar shop. This two-storey building has white uPVC windows to the front elevation with the A6.

1.7 The site is devoid of trees, but immediately beyond the northern curtilage of the site is a small stream (Whitley Beck), which is a tributary of the River Conder. The village of Galgate is a rural settlement situated within the Countryside Area as identified in the Lancaster District Local Plan (LDLP).

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The application seeks permission for a change of use of the single storey extension on the northern side of the public house to a residential flat. This element of the public house was formerly utilised as a customers' lounge area to the front with customer toilets to the rear. The application seeks to form a self contained flat to provide staff accommodation, to be utilised by a "designated premise supervisor" or other staff members. The flat would consist of a living room, kitchen, bathroom and 2 bedrooms.

2.2 It is proposed that the triangular outside area to the northern side of the aforementioned flat would be utilised as the private amenity space associated with the flat and intimated that a single car parking space would be created, accessed directly from the A6.

2.3 Finally the application seeks to replace all the windows throughout in uPVC with a rosewood finish. Those to the main building would be replaced with a half and half horizontal split and a half and half vertical split to replicate a sash style frame, (but with no horns). Those to the proposed new accommodation would have a half and half divide.

3.0 Site History

3.1 There is a current enforcement case (10/00241/UNAUTU) relating to a possible unauthorised use of the site regarding the possible change of use from a public house to a restaurant and the creation of a separate unit of residential accommodation. This matter was raised prior to this application being submitted.

Application Number Proposal Decision 07/00736/FUL Erection of an external covered area, decking and wall. Refused 07/01275/FUL Erection of a covered area to rear and construction of new Permitted boundary wall. 1/79/27 Alterations and extensions to existing public house and Permitted new detached garage.

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory consultees. Due to the late submission of the plans and additional supporting information these details were not available for consultation until the 23/24 November 2010.

Page 62 Statutory Consultee Response Parish Council At the time of compiling this report no comments have been received. (An email was received requesting an extension of time which on this occasion was declined, due to the fact that the timescale extension went beyond the Planning Committee date).

Strategic Housing At the time of compiling this report no comments have been received. A verbal Policy Officer update will be provided.

County Highways At the time of compiling this report no comments have been received. A verbal update will be provided.

Environmental Health Had originally recommended refusal due to inadequate provision of sanitary accommodation for customers as a result of the proposal. Had also recommended refusal based on the absence of an air quality assessment. However amended plans have been received and any updates regarding these plans will be verbally reported to Members.

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 Two letters of concern has been received highlighting the following issues:

• This should be treated as a retrospective application since works have already commenced; • Development appears to resemble that of a takeaway; • No toilets facilities are provided, including any disabled toilet; • Lack of parking for staff, customers (if a takeaway) and flats; • (Inadequate) room sizes; • Lack of disabled access provision into the self contained flat; • Suggestion that the first floor area has been sub-divided into two (2) flats.

One of the objectors would be supportive of a public house, but not of a takeaway use.

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 National Planning Policy Statements (PPS) and Guidance (PPG)

PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) sets out the Governments overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development and provides generic advice for all new development. PPS1 seeks to promote good design. Design which is inappropriate, or which fails to improve the character and quality of an area should not be accepted.

PPS23 (Planning and Pollution Control) - advises that any consideration of the quality of land, air or water and potential impacts arising from development, possibly leading to impacts on health , is capable of being a material planning consideration, in so far as it arises or may arise from or may affect any land use. The policy goes onto states that the government is committed to a 'precautionary principle' towards proposed development when there is good reason to believe that harmful effects may occur to human, animal or plant health, or to the environment;

6.2 Lancaster District Core Strategy (LDCS) - adopted July 2008

Policy SC1 (Sustainable Development) seeks to ensure that new development proposals are sustainable in terms of both location and design. This policy, albeit a generic overriding policy, states that sites should be previously developed and accessible to public transport, employment, leisure, education and community facilities. Development should be located in an area where it is convenient to walk, cycle or travel by public transport between homes, workplaces, shops and other facilities, uses energy efficient design and construction practices, incorporates renewable energy technologies and is compatible with the character of the surrounding landscape.

Policy SC3 (Rural Communities) seeks to build healthy sustainable communities by empowering rural communities to develop local vision and identity housing needs, and ensure that any housing Page 63 permitted is directly related to those needs.

6.3 Lancaster District Local Plan (saved policies)

Policy H7 (Housing in Villages) identifies Galgate as an existing rural settlement within which small- scale housing development will be permitted provided it is appropriate in terms of design and density and open space standards to its surroundings; and does not adversely affect the character of the area or residential amenity. In addition, the policy seeks to ensure satisfactory arrangements for access, servicing, cycle and car parking. This policy is partly superseded by the policy SC3 contained in the LDCS.

Policy H21 (Flat Development) and Appendix 2 seek to ensure development for the conversion of buildings to self contained flats provide a good standard of accommodation in respect of room sizes, natural light and outlook (amenity) with adequate cycle/parking provision and bin storage. The physical conversion of buildings should also demonstrate a satisfactory standard of design and appearance.

Policy E4 (The Countryside Area) relates to development within the countryside area stating that development will only be permitted where it is in scale and in keeping with the character of the landscape and is appropriate to its surroundings in terms of scale, siting, design and materials. It also seeks to ensure that development proposals will not result in a significant adverse effect on nature conservation or geological interests, and makes satisfactory arrangements for access, servicing, cycle and car parking.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 Background

The application was originally submitted with limited plans and no supporting information. Therefore the Development Management Team requested additional plans and supporting information so the proposal could be adequately assessed. Despite waiting 2 weeks for this information, the details submitted were still incomplete. Final details were submitted the day before the deadline for Committee reports and as such the consultation responses on the amendments will be verbally report.

The application site is currently vacant, though some internal works are currently on-going. For this reason it was considered expedient to bring the application to the December Planning Committee.

7.2 Planning Analysis

According to the Design and Access Statement the previous owners found the public house untenable due to the large floor area and the associated staff and servicing costs. It is the premise of this application to reduce the overall floor area associated with the public house to make it a more financially viable business opportunity. The application seeks to maintain the ground floor part of the main two storey building as a public house. The flat to the first floor area, it would appear, is to be retained as ancillary to the ground floor area beneath.

7.3 Flat Development - Amenities

In the proposed reconfiguration a separate unit of accommodation in the form of a small self contained flat would be created in the former lounge/toilet area. The applicant advises that this is to provide staff accommodation. The Design and Access Statement indicates that the smoking shelter would be retained, but not for its intended purpose, but instead would form the front entrance to the flat. The concreted triangular area would then be utilised as private amenity space for the flat, incorporating bin and cycle storage and a parking space, with access gained directly from the A6 via a new wall opening.

Page 64 The proposed development raises a number of concerns. Whilst it is accepted that there is a need for staff accommodation on site, it would appear unnecessary to provide two separate areas for accommodation. The accommodation at first floor remains unchanged and remains ancillary to the public house.

The second flat, however, is a separate unit of accommodation and as such must be considered in relation to Appendix 2 of the Lancaster District Local Plan. This appendix seeks specific internal and external standards with minimum standards that are to be attained. In this particular case the proposed kitchen and bathroom achieve the requirements whilst the living room and main bedroom do not.

Room Function Minimal Internal Standards Proposed(m 2) (m 2) Lounge 11.1 10.3 Main bedroom 10.2 9.6

This matter had been highlighted with the applicant's agent who felt that the rooms met the requirement albeit at the lower end of the recommendation.

Environmental Health has held separate discussions with the applicant regarding concerns over the air quality serving this flat. Due to the heavy traffic congestion experienced in the village centre, Galgate is identified as an Air Quality Management Area. As such, the local authority would expect that any newly created flats should provide a clean air ventilation unit. Unfortunately, the applicant considers that passive ventilation via windows will suffice. This has resulted in an objection on air quality grounds.

7.4 Highways

The application as a whole has raised a number of concerns with County Highways. A specific point was raised relating to the availability of private parking. A rather ambiguous response was received in that a single car parking space could be provided "if planning recommends." A plan was then submitted illustrating the parking space. If Members were minded to approve the scheme, this would include the provision of a parking space which raises concerns with County Highways. It is considered that the creation of a car parking space in this location creates a highway safety problem as there is insufficient space for a vehicle to enter the site and turn around within the curtilage. Furthermore, an access in such close proximity to a signalised junction is considered unacceptable in highway safety terms.

It is worth noting that in Appendix 2 of the LDLP, where all other factors are favourable, lack of car parking will not in itself constitute a justification for refusal of permission. The flat is situated directly adjacent to the A6 with a range of local facilities and good public transport connections.

In addition, the agent has indicated the loss of the existing smoking shelter for its intended purpose. He has indicated that should customers wish to smoke they would utilise the area to the front of the pub, which could be screened from the pavement. This matter has raised concerns with highways that ultimately this predicament could lead to customers congregating around the entrance which is adjacent to the crossing point on the A6 and ultimately cause a potential hazard and an unnecessary distraction to motorists.

7.5 Replacement Windows

The A6 is a busy road and forms one of the main access corridors towards Lancaster. The Green Dragon Public House is slightly orientated to provide a prominent corner location frontage in the village centre of Galgate, which is clearly visible from all the converging roads at the signalised junction.

The building itself is neither Listed, nor is the village settlement identified as a Conservation Area. However, the main two-storey building itself is a traditional stone structure, with natural stone features to the window surrounds, quoins, corbels and gutters all beneath a natural slate roof. The windows are currently timber framed with a painted finish. The external appearance of the main windows gives the impression of a sash design, but they are actually top-opening. Those to the front Page 65 elevation of the main building include 'horns'. The applicant proposes to replace all the windows throughout the building with uPVC in a rosewood finish, with no 'horn' detailing. The window configuration to the main two storey element is one of half and half horizontal split and a half and half vertical split to replicate a sash style frame, (but with no horns). Those to the proposed new accommodation would have a half and half divide.

With the exception of omitting the horns the detailing to the windows is considered acceptable. The main area of contention relates to the impact of uPVC windows on the building itself and the wider impact on the street scene.

It is accepted there are instances in the locale of uPVC being introduced, the vast majority of which relate to residential dwellings where no permission would have been required. It is brought to Members' attention that the windows of the New Inn public house directly opposite the site are in timber and it with this in mind that the application is recommended to be resisted and not encouraged.

It is understandable that the applicant wishes to increase the efficiency of the building with the introduction of double glazing, but it is considered that the building lends itself to timber rather than uPVC. The recommendation is based purely on one of maintaining the integrity, character and external appearance of the building and the broader impact on the streetscene.

7.6 Additional Comments

Two letters of objection have been received from local members of the public. One important point raised was the omission of any public toilets in the main building, which may, or may not have led them to believe that the ultimate intension of the proposed scheme was to develop a take-away. The matter of the toilets was also raised by Environmental Health and subsequently amended in the revised scheme which was submitted. The matter of a take-away is not the subject of this application and would require a separate Change of Use application in its own right.

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 None.

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 It is accepted that the proposal represents an opportunity to develop what is currently a vacant public house in a prominent and central village location. In a time where many rural public houses are closing, attempts should be made, and (where matters are appropriate) encouraged, to safeguard these public facilities.

However, whilst the local authority is keen to see this vacant building utilised for the benefit of the local community and in the wider interest of the area, the proposal cannot be supported at the expense of public health, highway safety or indeed those requirements set down in both national and local policy.

With regards to the first paragraph providing the background information to this application, the applicant's agent has been advised at every opportunity to withdraw the application to seek an acceptable scheme that can attempt to resolve the problems listed in the report. This has not been forthcoming. Unfortunately under the circumstances and for the reasoning provided above the application is therefore recommended to be refused in its current form pending a complete revised submission which is more compatible to policy and sympathetic to the locale. The local planning authority will endeavour to work with the applicant, if he commits to resolving these issues.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The living room and main bedroom associated with the self contained flat do not meet the minimum internal standards as set down in Appendix 2 of the Lancaster District Local Plan. The proposed development is therefore contrary to saved Policy H21 of the LDLP.

Page 66 2. The Green Dragon Public House is situated in the village centre of Galgate. Due to the heavy traffic congestion experienced within the village and the associated air quality concerns, Galgate is classified as being within an Air Quality Management Area. The introduction of a new self contained flat associated with the development, without a ventilation unit to provide clean air, is contrary to Planning Policy Statement 23 and ultimately would be detrimental to the amenities of the future occupant.

3. The Green Dragon Public House is situated in the village centre of Galgate, directly adjacent to the main A6 and immediately to the northern side of a signalised junction. The proposed private parking area would provide insufficient space for a vehicle to enter the site and turn around within the curtilage. The application is therefore considered unacceptable in terms of highway safety, contrary to saved policies H7 and E4 of the Lancaster District Local Plan.

4. The application site forms a prominent building situated in the centre of the village settlement which is clearly in the public domain. It is considered that the introduction of the factory made Rosewood finished windows with their cold, smooth, mechanical and reflective sheen of a moulded material would detract from the character of the building and ultimately lead to a gradual accretion of such features in the village settlement to the detriment of the visual amenities of the area. The application is therefore contrary to the principles of Planning Policy Statement 1, Policy SC5 of the Lancaster District Core Strategy and saved Policy E4 of the Lancaster District Local Plan.

Human Rights Act

This recommendation h as been reached after consideration of the provisions of The Human Rights Act. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the issues arising do not appear to be of such magnitude to override the responsibility of the City Council to regulate land use for the benefit of the community as a whole, in accordance with national law.

Background Papers

None

Page 67 Agenda Item Committee Date AgendaApplication Item Number 14

A14 13 December 2010 10/01100/DPA

Application Site Proposal

Assembly Rooms Emergency strengthening works to south gable involving internal restraint bars within floor King Street construction and anchor plates on wall face of gable

Lancaster

Lancashire

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Mr John Campbell Mr Joe Parkins

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

22 December 2010 None

Case Officer Mr Andrew Holden

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Approval

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 The application site is a Grade II listed building located within the Castle Conservation Area fronting King Street, Lancaster. The building dates back to 1759 and was built by Lancaster Corporation with the express intent of raising money through public entertainment to provide for the upkeep and well being of residents of the adjoining Penny’s Hospital.

1.2 The building is a two-storey stone-built property under a slate roof. The building is effectively two large rooms, one per floor. The ground floor is a specialist antique market whilst the upper floor is a dance studio accessed via a separate access door, again off the front elevation.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The application is seeking consent for emergency strengthening works to the south gable of the building. The works includes the insertion of restraint bars through the floor joist of the building and the attachment of four anchor plates to the external face of the gable wall. The restraint bars are drilled and feed across a number of floor joists, Additional strengthening in the form of inset steel plates and additional noggins are introduced to aid lateral restraint of the gable wall

3.0 Site History

3.1 The site has a limited planning history dating back over 30 years. The applications relate to the development of the ground and first floor uses of the building and associated advertising.

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory consultees:

Page 68 Statutory Consultee Response English Heritage Do not wish to offer comments on this occasion; the application should be determined in accordance with the national and local policy guidance and on the basis of the Council’s expert conservation advice.

Conservation Formal views awaited, no objections in principle to the proposals. Officer

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 None

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 Lancaster Core Strategy

SC5 – Achieving Quality in Design to ensure that development proposal achieve the Core Strategy vision of leading the North West in terms of urban design.

E1 – Environmental Capital, the Council will seek to safeguard and enhance the district’s environmental capital ensuring that development in the City of Lancaster conserves and enhances their sense of place.

6.2 Lancaster District Local Plan

Policy E33 - seeks to ensure that proposal involving internal or external alterations would not have an adverse effect upon the architectural or historic character of the building.

Policy E35 – development proposals which would adversely affect important views into and across a conservation area or lead to an unacceptable erosion of historic form would not be supported.

Policy E38 – supports proposals in the conservation area which reflect the scale and style of surrounding buildings and use complementary material.

Policy E39 – supports alterations within conservation areas which will not result in the loss or alteration of features which contribute to the character of the area. The design, form and materials should be sympathetic to the character of the area.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 The application has been submitted following a detailed investigation by structural engineers and the sudden dipping of a section of the first floor within the dance studio. The structural investigation determined that the dipping of the floor is as a result of slippage of the floor joist off a main structural timber member running from front to back of the building. This slippage is thought to be as a result of a lack of lateral restraint and a reduction in mass of the central section of wall due to the internal flues. As a result the wall has moved out and drawn the walled-in floor joist clear of the nearest timber beam.

7.2 The proposal will not reposition the wall to its original line but will seek to stabilise the situation and provide additional strengthening to the restraint to ensure that there is not further movement to the walls. The design approach has been the subject of prior discussion with the Senior Conservation Officer and is a commonly rehearsed technique for stabilising lateral movement in walls. The proposal is not considered to be unduly detrimental to the fabric of the listed building with all works being hidden from within the Assembly Rooms. The only external evidence will be the positioning of four circular cast iron plate of 300mm diameter, a common detail on many older buildings in the District.

7.3 The development is not considered to conflict with policy contained with the development plans or national guidance contained with PPS 5 – Planning for the Historic Environment. The approach is considered to have limited intrusion into the fabric of the building and will help to safeguard the future Page 69 of the building.

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 N/A.

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 Subject to appropriate conditions the application should be supported. However, as the building is owned by the local authority the application must be considered and approved by the Regional Government Office.

Recommendation

Subject to no objections being raised by Government Office for the North West, Planning Permission BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard three year time limit 2. Development to be built in accordance with the approved plans 3. Construction methodology in accordance with details set out in the Heritage Statement

Human Rights Act

This recommendation has been reached after consideration of the provisions of The Human Rights Ac t. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the issues arising do not appear to be of such magnitude to override the responsibility of the City Council to regulate land use for the benefit of the community as a whole, in accordance with national law.

Background Papers

None.

Page 70 AgendaAgenda Item Item 15 Committee Date Application Number

A15 13 th December 2010 10/00982/DPA

Application Site Proposal

Town Hall Listed building application for repointing works and other works Dalton Square

Lancaster

Lancashire

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Lancaster City Council Mrs S Sealby

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

12 November 2010 Request for amended plans

Case Officer Ms Petra Williams

Departure No

Approval with conditions subject to referral to Summary of Recommendation Government Office.

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 The application has been brought before Committee Members as the subject property is in City Council ownership.

The application site is the Lancaster Town Hall situated in Dalton Square in the core of the Lancaster City Centre. The Town Hall is a Grade II* Listed Building and is made up of sandstone ashlar under slate roofing. The site is also within the City Conservation Area.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The application proposes the repointing of all elevations of the Town Hall parapets which comprise approximately 20% of the building. The application also includes minor structural repairs to timber joints in one particular area of the roof void above the Ashton Hall.

Page 71 3.0 Site History

3.1 The Town Hall has an extensive planning history which largely relates to matters of maintenance and repair. No previous applications materially affect this current submission.

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory consultees:

Statutory Consultee Response English Heritage This application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance and on the basis of the LPA’s expert conservation advice Conservation Requests conditions County Archaeology No archaeological comments to make

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 No representations received

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 5 (Planning for the Historic Environment) - outlines the Government’s overarching aim for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment and its heritage and states that in considering the impact of a proposal on any heritage asset,(e.g. listed building) local planning authorities should take into account the particular nature of the of the heritage asset.

6.2 Lancaster District Local Plan (LDLP): Saved Policy E33 of the Local Plan refers to proposals involving external alterations to Listed Buildings. It states that alterations which would have an adverse effect on the architectural or historic character or interest of the buildings or their surroundings will not be permitted.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 The proposed work is necessary due to the defective state of the existing lime mortar joints above the parapet frieze and this submission follows on from similar applications for works of repair and restoration which have been submitted in recent months.

7.2 The application states that the existing mortar will be carefully removed and repointing will be to match existing to the satisfaction of the Conservation Officer. The method of removal is acceptable and conditions will ensure that a mortar analysis is carried out and that a sample of mortar pointing is prepared for the approval of the Conservation Officer.

7.4 Strengthening works will be undertaken above the ceiling of Ashton Hall. It is proposed that the existing timber joists remain in place and a timber splice is bolted to either side of the joist and then a steel plate attached to the timber splice and fixed to the gable wall. This method will eliminate potential concerns about the risk to damage the ceiling below during the strengthening works and the Conservation Officer does not require this aspect of the proposed works to be conditioned.

7.5 The works will not have an adverse effect on the special architectural or historic character of the building and will not harm the significance of the heritage asset. The proposal therefore accords with national and local plan policies (PPS5 and E33).

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 There are no planning obligations to consider.

Page 72 9.0 Conclusions

9.1 The proposed works are necessary in order to improve maintenance within this Grade II* Listed Building. The repointing and structural works are considered to be appropriate and nevertheless will not be highly visible. In conclusion, this proposal will not adversely affect the character or the setting of listed building or the surrounding conservation area and will act to preserve and enhance this heritage asset. The work is considered sympathetic and complies with the policy principles of PPS5 and saved Policy E33 of the Lancaster District Local Plan which guide development in relation to historical assets. It is on this basis that Members are advised that this application can be supported.

Recommendation

That the application be referred to Government Office North West with a recommendation that PERMISSION BE GRANTED subject to conditions as follows: 1. Standard Listed Building time limit. 2. Amended plans 3. Development in accordance with approved plans. 4. A sample of the mortar from the masonry shall be removed and analysed. No repointing works are to be commenced until the results of the analysis has been made available to the LPA. A sample area of cutting out shall be prepared fro the approval of the LPA. Depending on the results of the mortar analysis a sample of mortar pointing shall be prepared for the approval of the LPA. 5. A sample of the stone or mortar infilling to the exposed ends of the ties shall be prepared for the approval of the LPA.

Human Rights Act

Background Papers

1. None

Page 73 Agenda Item Committee Date AgendaApplication Item Number 16

A16 13 December 2010 10/00847/DPA

Application Site Proposal

Town Hall Listed building application for works to roof including Marine Road East renewal of roof lights Morecambe Lancashire

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Lancaster City Council Mrs Su Sealby

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

4 November 2010 Awaiting amended plans

Case Officer Mr Andrew Dobson

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Approval

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.1 Morecambe Town Hall is a Grade II Listed Building. It was completed in 1931 and was listed in November 2001. The listing description notes that original interior fittings survive throughout the building, including the panelled doors and light fittings.

1.2 The Town Hall is accessed primarily from Marine Road East to the north, though further pedestrian access can be gained from car parks to the west and south. The site itself is unallocated in the Local Plan, though the gardens to the front of the building ar e designated as Urban Greenspace. Other neighbouring uses include a cemetery and a Bingo Hall.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 The application is for Listed Building consent for works to roof including renewal of roof lights. These alterations will involve the re roofing of the current flat roof areas which suffer from leaking. It also involves the removal of a number of roof lights to corridor areas which will no longer be required when the corridors are removed to facilitate the internal alterations and creation of modernised office accommodation proposed in the application which accompanies this one.

3.0 Site History

3.1 A number of relevant applications relating to this site have previously been received by the Local Planning Authority. These include:

Application Number Proposal Decision 07/00097/LB Listed building application to demolish partition walls to Approved create Customer Service Centre 08/00371/DPA and Replacement of various windows Approved 08/00372/LB 08/00401/LB Listed building application for replacement ceiling to two Approved rooms Page 74 10/00965/DPA Listed building application for internal remodelling of part Pending ground and first floor and full electrical rewire and installation of automatic fire detection

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory and internal consultees:

Consultee Response English Heritage This application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of expert conservation advice within the Local Planning Authority.

Morecambe Town No objection to work being carried out to the roof, but would object to the lantern lights Council being replaced with something different.

Conservation Following the submission of amended plans the Conservation Officer has no Officer objections to the scheme.

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 No comments have been received during the statutory consultation period.

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 National Planning Policy Statements (PPS) and Guidance notes (PPG)

PPS5 (Planning for the Historic Environment) - has superseded PPG15 and PPG16. The Government’s overarching aim is that the historic environment and its heritage assets should be conserved and enjoyed for the quality of life they bring to this and future generations. In order to deliver sustainable development, PPS5 states that polices and decisions concerning the historic environment should:

6.2 Lancaster District Local Plan - adopted April 2004 (saved policies)

Policy E33 (Alterations or Extension of Listed buildings) - proposals involving external or internal alterations to Listed buildings which would have an adverse effect on the special architectural or historic character or interest of the buildings or their surroundings will not be permitted.

6.3 Lancaster District Core Strategy - adopted July 2008

Policy E1 (Environmental Capital) - development should protect and enhance Listed buildings and conservation areas.

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 The roof of the Listed Building is currently in poor condition and leaks in places. The re-roofing is essential to protect the refurbishment works proposed in the application which accompanies this one. Reducing the number of roof lights is justified and the amended plans aim to keep the most important ones over the entrance area to the Town Hall, and above the Committee rooms.

7.2 The report relating to the internal alterations details the operational justification for the overall scheme of works. Page 75

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 None.

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 For the reasons set out above, Listed Building Consent should be granted subject to the conditions listed below.

Recommendation

That the application be referred to Government Office North West with a recommendation that Listed Building Consent BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard Listed building consent timescale 2. Amended plans 3. Works to accord with plans 4. Sample of roof covering material and colours to be agreed 5. Details of new roof lights to be agreed 6. Chases in brickwork to use existing joints

Human Rights Act

Background Papers

None

Page 76 AgendaAgenda Item Item 17 Committee Date Application Number

A17 13 December 2010 10/00965/DPA

Application Site Proposal

Town Hall Listed building application for internal remodelling of Marine Road East part ground and first floor and full electrical rewire and Morecambe installation of automatic fire detection Lancashire

Name of Applicant Name of Agent

Lancaster City Council Mrs Su Sealby

Decision Target Date Reason For Delay

8 November 2010 Awaiting amended plans

Case Officer Mr Andrew Dobson

Departure No

Summary of Recommendation Approval

1.0 The Site and its Surroundings

1.2 The Town Hall is accessed primarily from Marine Road East to the north, though further pedestrian access can be gained from car parks to the west and south. The site itself is unallocated in the Local Plan, though the gardens to the front of the building are designated as Urban Greenspace. Other neighbouring uses include a cemetery and a Bingo Hall.

2.0 The Proposal

2.1 This application proposes a number of internal alterations to the Town Hall to facilitate the creation of new modernised office space within unimproved parts of the building, and to bring the accommodation up to the standards required by the Fire and Building Regulations. The alterations involve the removal of internal partition walls, high level glazing along corridors, the installation of suspended ceilings and lighting, and a number of new internal doors. The areas affected are the exiting unimproved offices on the ground and first floors and the two committee rooms and Mayors Parlour on the first floor. A new doorway is to be inserted into the side wall of Committee Room 1 to comply with the building regulations.

3.0 Site History

3.1 A number of relevant applications relating to this site have previously been received by the Local Planning Authority. These include:

Application Number Proposal Decision 07/00097/LB Listed building application to demolish partition walls to Approved create Customer Service Centre 08/00371/DPA and Replacement of various windows Approved Page 77 08/00372/LB 08/00401/LB Listed building application for replacement ceiling to two Approved rooms 10/00847/DPA Listed building application for works to roof including Pending renewal of roof lights

4.0 Consultation Responses

4.1 The following responses have been received from statutory and internal consultees:

Morecambe Town Object to the banqueting rooms being converted to office space on the first floor. Council Cannot comment further on lack of information regarding the remodelling of part of the ground floor.

Conservation Officer Following the submission of amended plans the Conservation Officer raises no objections to the proposal.

Access Officer There is no accessible toilet on the first floor and the accessible toilet on the ground floor does not comply with current standards. It is strongly recommended that this is rectified.

5.0 Neighbour Representations

5.1 No comments have been received during the statutory consultation period.

6.0 Principal Development Plan Policies

6.1 National Planning Policy Statements (PPS) and Guidance notes (PPG)

6.2 Lancaster District Local Plan - adopted April 2004 (saved policies)

Policy R21 (Access for People with Disabilities) - requires disabled access provision.

6.3 Lancaster District Core Strategy - adopted July 2008

Policy E1 (Environmental Capital) - development should protect and enhance Listed buildings and conservation areas.

Page 78

7.0 Comment and Analysis

7.1 The proposals arise from the Councils decision a number of years ago as part of its asset management plans to aim to relocate all it’s staff into the two Town Halls. That decision was widely supported by the public accessing the Councils services. It was inevitable that modernisation works and building repairs would have to be carried out to both Town Halls in order to achieve this aim.

7.2 Whilst some of the interior walls were original features they are not considered to be the most significant features of the building. The Governments guidance in PPS5 recognises that the most effective way to manage heritage assets in good condition is to find a viable use for them to give them a secure future.

7.3 It is considered that in this instance the creation of modern and efficient office space can be achieved in the building without removing its most important and valuable fabric.

7.4 The Town Council’s objection is noted and understood. The City Council cannot however be expected to retain, repair and maintain Morecambe Town Hall without disposing of other buildings in the district and re-housing staff in the Town Halls. This necessitates making the most efficient use of the floor space available, and avoiding the duplication of facilities such as ceremonial rooms and Council Chambers.

8.0 Planning Obligations

8.1 None.

9.0 Conclusions

9.1 For the reasons set out above, Listed Building Consent should be granted subject to the conditions listed below.

Recommendation

That the application be referred to Government Office North West with a recommendation that Listed Building Consent BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard Listed building consent timescale 2. Amended plans 3. Works to accord with plans 4. Details of suspended ceiling layouts to be agreed 5. Details of decorative features and retailed columns to be agreed 6. Details of internal doors and architraves to be agreed 7. Specification of plaster to be agreed 8. Details of skirting boards to be agreed 9. Decoration pattern and colours to be agreed

Human Rights Act

This recommendation has been reached after consideration of the provi sions of The Human Rights Act. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the issues arising do not appear to be of such magnitude to override the responsibility of the City Council to regulate land use for the benefit of the community as a whole, in accordance with national law.

Background Papers

None.

A18 Page 79 Agenda Item 18

PLANNING AND HIGHWAYS REGULATORY COMMITTEE

Planning Application Validation Guidance 13 December 2010

Report of Head of Regeneration and Policy

PURPOSE OF REPORT To advise Members of the proposed revisions to the Development Management Team’s Planning Application Validation Guide and to seek formal adoption of the Guide from 1 st January 2011.

This report is public.

RECOMMENDATIONS

(1) That the revised Planning Application Validation Guide be formally adopted and be introduced from 1 st January 2011.

1.0 Introduction 1.1 The Planning Application Validation Guide (PAVG) is a document which advises planning applicants, planning agents and architects about what information they need to submit to accompany their planning applications. Lancaster City Council has had an adopted PAVG since 2007 and this has been reviewed on an annual basis.

1.2 In March 2010, the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) issued guidance to all local planning authorities regarding validation criteria. The objective was to ask all authorities to streamline their existing guidance to make the validation of planning applications more proportionate to the type of application and development being proposed.

1.3 Consequently Lancaster City Council’s Development Management Team has produced a draft PAVG, aimed at streamlining previous requirements. This document has been subject to an eight-week consultation, details of which are contained in this report. The PAVG has been amended to incorporate some of the suggestions received during the consultation process, and the document is now presented to Members for formal adoption.

1.4 The DCLG advise that revised Validation Guides should be in place by the end of December 2010. If this does not occur, and the list is not published on its website, then the local planning authority cannot have any bearing on the validity of applications beyond the national requirements stipulated by the DCLG.

Page 80

2.0 Proposal Details 2.1 The PAVG has always comprised a list of ‘national requirements’ that must accompany a planning application and a ‘local list of requirements’ that must also be submitted. The national requirements are set by the DCLG, whilst local planning authorities are left to establish what information they require in their own districts as part of their ‘local list’.

2.2 The national list of requirements includes the planning application form, certificates of ownership, plans, a Design and Access Statement, and the relevant fee.

2.3 The local list contains assessments, surveys and statements that may be required to accompany certain types of applications. These include Transport Assessments, Heritage Statements and Biodiversity Surveys. Many of these statements are referred to in National Planning Policy Statements, and they are often essential to inform proposals for planning permission, listed building consent, conservation area consent, etc.

2.4 The proposed PAVG contains both the national and local lists. It also contains a checklist at the end of the document and a ‘Useful Contacts’ section. A copy of the post-consultation version is attached as a Background Paper.

3.0 Details of Consultation 3.1 The PAVG has been subject to public consultation from 17 th September to 12 th November 2010. Comments received after that date have also been accepted. Consultation letters were sent to those local agents and architects who are on the Development Management Team’s Agent’s newsletter distribution list. Consultation notifications were also sent to all Elected Members, Parish Councils and Statutory Consultees. Paper copies were placed in both Lancaster and Morecambe Customer Service Centres and a version was available on the Council’s website.

3.2 Consultation responses were received from the following:

• Code Rating Services Ltd; • Ellel Parish Council; • English Heritage; • Environment Agency; • Fisher Wrathall; • Garner Planning Associates; • Lancashire County Council Ecology; • Lancashire County Council Strategic Planning; • Lancashire Wildlife Trust; • Michael Harrison; • Natural England; • Network Rail; • Sport England; Page 81

• The Coal Authority; • The Theatres Trust;

3.3 All comments received were assessed against the Government’s national criteria, and in the case of the local list, all comments were assessed against statutory requirements, national, regional or local adopted policy, or other legislative provisions. Consequently, amendments were made to the document and the amended document is attached as a background paper.

4.0 Options and Options Analysis (including risk assessment)

Option 1: To adopt Option 2: To not Option 3: To seek to the PAVG as adopt the PAVG as amend the criteria proposed. proposed and have for the PAVG and no local validation subsequently adopt criteria. a different, amended version. An adopted list Applications could Providing that the Advantages would provide all be submitted without amendments were in relevant information supporting accordance with criteria for the statements required statutory submission of by the local list. This requirements, planning applications may be an national, regional and would allow advantage to some and local policy, and fully-informed applicants in cost other legislative planning decisions to terms, but it carries provisions, the be made. no advantage to the decision to amend Development the document would Management be robust. Service and the Planning and Highways Regulatory Committee.

Adopting the list Failure to adopt the The delay in Disadvantages complies with DCLG revised PAVG by 31 amending the guidance regarding December 2010 document could the validation of would result in result in the City planning planning applications Council having no applications, and so being validated adopted PAVG for a there is no without any period of time from 1 disadvantage. supporting January 2011. This information required would mean that any by the local list. This planning applications would result in submitted during this planning decisions period would not being taken without have to comply with all of the necessary any local list criteria. information being present.

Page 82

The revised PAVG The greatest risk If there is a delay in Risks has been carried out associated with not adopting the PAVG, in accordance with adopting the PAVG then there is a risk DCLG advice and would be that that planning therefore the planning decisions decisions would be decision to adopt the would be made taken without all of document carries no without all of the the relevant direct risks. relevant information information being being available. This available. This could could leave the City leave the City Council open to Council open to challenge via challenge via planning appeals planning appeals and potential and potential applications for applications for costs. costs.

4.1 The preferred option is Option 1 – to adopt the PAVG as proposed.

5.0 Conclusion 5.1 Adopting the PAVG will ensure that all applications for planning permission and other associated consents are accompanied by the documents and statements that are necessary in each case. This will appropriately inform officer-delegated and non- delegated (Planning and Highways Regulatory Committee) planning decisions.

5.2 If the document is adopted, it will replace the existing PAVG from 1 st January 2011.

CONCLUSION OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT (including Diversity, Human Rights, Community Safety, Sustainability and Rural Proofing) The PAVG has considered all impacts. Some of the documents and statements required under the ‘Local List’ criteria seek to provide supporting information relating to issues such as sustainability, community safety, etc. Other than this, there are no other impacts arising from the adoption of the document.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The PAVG is a statutory document providing advice to users of the Development Management Service, and the criteria contained therein is considered to be appropriate and commensurate to each type of planning application submission. Applicants who wish to challenge the local planning authority’s decision not to validate an application have the right to do so under judicial review (as stipulated in the DCLG’s Policy Annex – Information Requirements and Validation for Planning Applications ). Occasionally local planning authorities do not validate applications on the basis that they consider the quality of the supporting information to be inadequate. In such cases, the applicant may appeal to the Planning Inspectorate under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, with the relevant ground for appeal being non-determination within the 8 or 13 week determination period. Other than these rights to challenge the validation, there are no further legal implications. Page 83

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The PAVG is a statutory document providing advice to users of the Development Management Service and for the preferred Option 1, there are no direct financial implications to the authority.

OTHER RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS Human Resources: There are no implications for Human Resources. Information Services: There are no implications for Information Services. Property: There are no direct implications for Property Services. Any planning application to alter Council-owned property would be subject to the information criteria contained in the PAVG. Open Spaces: There are no direct implications relating to open spaces. Any planning application to change the use of Council-owned open spaces would be subject to the information criteria contained in the PAVG.

SECTION 151 OFFICER’S COMMENTS The Section 151 Officer has been consulted. Comment will be available prior to the determination of this report.

MONITORING OFFICER’S COMMENTS The Monitoring Officer has been consulted and has no further comments.

BACKGROUND PAPERS Contact Officer: Mark Cassidy Telephone: 01524 582390 1. Post-consultation edition of the Planning E-mail: [email protected] Application Validation Guide (2011)

(Attached).

Page 84

Planning Application Validation Guide

Regeneration & Policy (Development Management)

Post-Consultation Edition - December 2010 Page 85

Background

Lancaster City Council first adopted planning validation criteria (the ‘ Planning Application Validation Guide’ ) in April 2007, in line with Government guidance at the time. The Validation Guide provides information to applicants, agents, architects and other users of the planning system in respect of the type of information that is required to accompany proposals for planning permission and other associated ‘planning’ regimes.

The City Council made an annual review of the criteria contained within its Validation Guide in 2008, and again in 2009 to respond to emerging national guidance and legislation.

As part of a drive towards a quicker, more efficient planning system, the Government instructed all local authorities to review, re-consult and publish further-revised planning application validation criteria by 31 December 2010. This document contains those revisions.

The Validation Guide comprises a list of ‘national validation requirements’ set by Government, and ‘local list requirements’ set by each local planning authority. Applications for planning permission or for other similar consents must accord with both lists, in order that the application can be made valid.

An ‘at-a-glance’ checklist appears at the back of this document and this will assist in summarising the necessary information requirements per application type. A list of useful contacts is also provided in this section.

This document has been the subject of public consultation between 17 September and 12 November 2010. All consultation comments were considered against statutory requirements, legislative provisions and all tiers of the Development Plan.

This document is now accompanied by a report to the Planning and Highways Regulatory Committee, where it is intended that the document will be offered for formal adoption. If this occurs then the document will come into force on 1 January 2011.

Page 86

The National List of Information Requirements

The following national requirements are necessary to validate planning applications.

N1. The Planning Application Form

The standard application form requires applicants to submit information on a range of issues, tailored to the type of application. Applicants should answer all the questions. A failure to answer all questions would result in an invalidated application.

The planning application form is available at: http://www.lancaster.gov.uk/planning-environment/planning- permission/1app/ Or: http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/england/public/planning/applicatio ns/

If the application (and supporting plans and documents) is submitted electronically by the Planning Portal, then no paper copies are required. If the plans are being submitted as paper copies, then ONE copy is required for applications within the City of Lancaster, and TWO copies are required in all other towns and parishes. For medium and major- scale applications a CD or DVD comprising of the application forms, plans and documents will be essential and will assist in speeding up the consultation process.

N2. Ownership Certificates and Notice

Under Section 65 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the local planning authority cannot validate an application unless the relevant certificates concerning the ownership of the application site have been completed. One of the national Ownership Certificates (A, B, C or D) must be completed. Ownership certificates are part of the standard application form.

A notice to all owners of the application site must be completed and served in accordance with Article 11 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010. Page 87

An ‘owner’ is defined as anyone with a freehold interest, or leaseholders with at least seven years of the leasehold left unexpired.

N3. Agricultural Land Certificate and Declaration

Under Articles 11 and 12 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010, all agricultural tenants on a site must be notified of a planning application. The Certificate is required whether or not the site includes an agricultural holding. It is incorporated into the standard application form and must be signed in order for the planning application to be valid.

However there are categories of applications where the signing of the Certificate is not required. These are – the approval of reserved matters; renewal of temporary permission; discharge/variation of conditions; applications for tree works; conservation area consent applications for demolition; listed building consent; lawful development certificates; prior notification applications; non-material amendments to an existing planning permission; and applications for the display of an advertisement.

N4. The Location Plan

National guidance requires applicants to submit a location plan based upon an up-to-date map which identifies the exact location of the application site (including all the land necessary to carry out the proposed development, including access from a public highway, visibility splays, landscaping, car parking and open space).

The location plan should be at an identified metric scale, typically 1:1250 or 1:2500. The application site should be identified clearly with a red line. A blue line should be drawn around any other land owned by the applicant, close to or adjoining the application site.

The only applications that do not require a location plan are those that are submitted for variation/removal of planning conditions or applications for an extension of time.

N5. The Site Plan

A site plan must accompany the location plan. It must also be drawn at an identified standard metric scale. The site plan should accurately show:

(a) The direction of North; Page 88

(b) The proposed development in relation to site boundaries and other existing buildings on the site, with written dimensions including those to boundaries; (c) All the buildings, roads and footpaths on land adjoining the site; (d) All public rights of way (footpaths, bridleways, etc) that may cross or adjoin the site; (e) The position of all trees on the site, where any are affected by the development; (f) The extent and type of hard surfacing if any is proposed; (g) Boundary treatment if any new or altered boundary treatments are proposed.

The only applications that do not require a site plan are those that are submitted for variation/removal of planning conditions or applications for an extension of time.

N6. Elevation Plans, Floor Plans and Sectional Plans

All plans should be shown at a metric scale, usually 1:50 or 1:100 and they should explain the proposal in detail. Existing and proposed plans are required in all cases (In cases where there is no elevational change proposed, such as change of use of a building, then elevational plans will not usually be required, and only floor plans showing the internal alterations/room uses will usually be required).

Where development does propose elevational change, elevational plans must be provided for all sides of the development affected. Where an elevation adjoins another building, the plan should clearly show the relationship between the two and details of the positions of doors and windows on each property.

Floor plans should show all of the proposed floor area and not just part of it. They should also denote the existing and proposed use of each room.

Sectional plans are necessary where the proposal involves development on a site with differing land levels, or where it involves a change in ground levels (e.g. introduction of decking areas). Sectional plans may also be requested in other cases by the Planning Officer and they may need to be accompanied by Site Level Drawings indicating finished floor levels, contours or spot levels above Ordnance Datum across the site.

The only applications that do not require further plans are those that are submitted for variation/removal of planning conditions or applications for an extension of time.

N7. The Correct Fee

Page 89

Planning application fees are at the time of writing (December 2010), described in Communities and Local Government (CLG) ‘ Circular 04/2008 – Planning-Related Fees’ . Fees can be calculated using the following link at the national ‘Planning Portal’ website:

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/england/public/planning/applicatio ns/feecalc

An application cannot be validated without the appropriate fee.

It is anticipated that national legislation will be passed in 2011 to allow local planning authorities to set their own fee structures. Applicants are advised to consult Lancaster City Council’s website for further details (www.lancaster.gov.uk )

N8. The Design and Access Statement

A Design and Access Statement (DAS) is a report accompanying the application to illustrate the design process and access considerations that have occurred through evolution of the proposal. It should also advise which other design/access options have been discounted. Key aspects to be contained in the DAS include the type of use(s) being proposed, the amount of development, the layout of development, the scale of development, any existing or proposed landscaping and public realm/art, the provision of open space (applicants are advised to refer to the City Council’s District Open Space, Sport and Recreation Facilitites Report (2007) to ascertain the required levels of public open space in each case), any existing and proposed lighting; the appearance of the development and the existing and proposed access arrangements associated with the proposal.

The DAS is not a substitute for drawings or other supporting statements. It is an opportunity for applicants to demonstrate their commitment to achieving good design and ensuring accessibility in the work they undertake.

The length and complexity of the DAS shall be commensurate to the development being proposed.

With regard to outline planning applications, applicants are advised that the DAS should contain a series of parameters which would be taken forward to the reserved matters stage.

A DAS must accompany the following applications:

Page 90

• Householder development in World Heritage Sites, Conservation Areas or requiring Listed Building Consent (including those within the curtilage of a Listed Building);

• The erection of any walls, gates, fences or other means of enclosure within World Heritage Sites, Conservation Areas or requiring Listed Building Consent (including those within the curtilage of a Listed Building);

• Any non-domestic development (including the erection of buildings/structures, alterations to existing buildings/structures, erection/alteration/replacement of plant and machinery etc) in World Heritage Sites, Conservation Areas or requiring Listed Building Consent (including those within the curtilage of a Listed Building);

• And all other applications that lie outside World Heritage Sites, Conservation Areas, or do not affect a Listed Building or its curtilage with the following exceptions :

(i) Engineering or mining operations;

(ii) Householder development, including development within the curtilage of the dwelling;

(iii) A material change of use of land or buildings, unless it also involves operational development;

(iv) Extensions to time limits for implementing existing planning permissions;

(v) Development of an existing flat for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the flat;

(vi) The erection, construction, improvement or alteration of a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure upto 2m in height, or upto the height of the existing means of enclosure, whichever is higher;

(vii) Development on operational land consisting of the erection of a building/structure upto 100 cubic metres in volume and 15m in height;

(viii) The alteration of an existing building where the alteration does not increase the size of the building;

Page 91

(ix) The erection, alteration or replacement of plant/machinery where as a result of the development, the height of the plant/machinery would not exceed 15m above ground level or the height of the original plant/machinery (whichever is greater); or,

(x) Development of land pursuant to Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (determination of applications to develop land without conditions previously attached);

DAS are not required for applications relating to advertisement control, tree preservation orders/works, hazardous substance consent, prior approval notifications or non-material amendments to existing planning permissions.

Where a proposal has been subject to a Building for Life Assessment , this should be incorporated into the DAS. For more information regarding Building for Life, visit: http://www.buildingforlife.org/assessments

The City Council may occasionally advise that applicants/developers should submit their scheme for ‘Design Review’ at ‘Places Matter’. Places Matter is an Architecture and Built Environment Centre that operates in the North West Region to promote good design. Their Design Review Panels offer constructive and impartial advice at the pre- planning application stage.

The Local List of Information Requirements

The following local requirements have been deemed by Lancaster City Council as being necessary to validate certain types of planning application. Please refer to the Application Checklist at the end of this Guide for further Page 92

assistance.

L1. Additional Plans, Photographs and Photomontages

Planning Officers will occasionally request (during pre-application discussions) the submission of additional metric-scaled plans to illustrate the proposal in greater detail.

For example, where a proposal affects a road frontage, or where the scale/appearance of a proposed building may differ from other buildings on a street, then a Streetscene Plan may be required to illustrate the proposal alongside existing buildings.

Where a site lies within a remote part of the district, an Ordnance Survey Plan indicating the location of the site in relation to the nearest settlement may be required.

Where specific details are important (e.g. the details of joinery on Listed Building submissions, or sectional detail showing the means of illumination on advertisement applications), these details may be required on 1:5, 1:10 or 1:20 plans .

Roof plans will be necessary for any roof being created or altered by the proposal. The plan should show the roof shape, location and material to be used.

Where new buildings are proposed, particularly on a major scale, existing photographs and proposed photomontages are an excellent visual aid. However they are not a substitute for plans.

L2. Statement of Community Involvement

The Council’s Adopted Statement of Community Involvement (June 2006) provides information as to what is expected of applicants and developers. The City Council encourages all applicants to discuss their proposals with people and communities affected.

A Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) may be requested in non- householder applications to demonstrate the pre-application consultation process and record the discussions that have taken place. The SCI should indicate how the proposals have evolved in response to consultation.

Page 93

L3. Supporting Planning Statement (including, where requested, a Development Costs/Marketing Appraisal )

An explanation of how the proposal relates in policy terms to national and local planning policies can be beneficial to all parties.

A Supporting Planning Statement will be required to support all ‘major’ developments and for other developments that are not in accordance with the development plan.

It may be necessary for developers to provide a detailed breakdown of the costs involve in developing a site, particularly where planning obligations are likely to be requested. Where one is required, a Development Costs/Marketing Appraisal will usually be requested by the Planning Officer at the pre-application stage.

L4. Heritage Statement

Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (PPS5, 2010) has amended the national approach to considering the impact of development proposals on the historic environment.

As such, a Heritage Statement (HS) is required for all applications that affect heritage assets, irrespective of whether a Design and Access Statement is required or not.

A heritage asset is a building, monument, site, place, area or landscape positively identified as having a degree of significance or meriting consideration in planning decisions. They are the valued components of the historic environment. They include:

• Designated heritage assets (as defined in PPS 5 as: Scheduled Monuments; Listed Buildings ; Conservation Areas; World Heritage Sites; Registered Parks and Gardens; Protected Wreck Sites; and Registered Battlefields);

• Assets identified by the local planning authority through the plan- making process (e.g. local listing); and,

• Assets identified during the development management process.

The heritage interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic.

PPS5 also advises that the HS should contain a statement of the significance of the heritage assets affected and the contribution of their Page 94

setting to that significance. It is important to note that there will often be more than one heritage asset involved (e.g. a listed building within a conservation area), and that the setting does not necessarily have to be the immediate vicinity; it can be some distance away.

The level of detail should be sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on the significance of the heritage asset. It should also be proportionate to the importance of the heritage asset.

Policy HE6 of PPS5 states that, as a minimum , the relevant historic environment record (HER) should be consulted. The HER for the City Council’s district is managed and maintained at County level by the Lancashire County Archaeology Service (LCAS). Contact details for the Lancashire HER Officer can be found at the end of this Guide.

Further guidance is given in the PPS5 Practice Guide on assessing the significance of a heritage asset (paragraphs 54-62). PPS5 and the Practice Guide can be found downloaded via the following links:

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1 514132.pdf

http://www.english- heritage.org.uk/publications/ppspracticeguide/pps5practiceguide.pdf

L5. Environmental Statements (Environmental Impact Assessments)

Environmental Statements (ES) must be provided for any development that falls within Schedule 1 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 1999, and for some specified Schedule 2 projects under the same legislation.

The ES should analyse the existing and likely environmental impacts arising either directly or indirectly from the proposal, and be accompanied by a non-technical summary.

The applicant/developer may wish to submit a Screening Opinion request to the City Council to determine whether an ES is necessary. Where an ES is required, Schedule 4 of the Regulations sets out the information that should be included. Applicants may request a Scoping Opinion from the City Council to further determine the scope and content of the ES.

L6. Biodiversity Survey

National policies relating to biodiversity, geodiversity and geology are contained in Planning Policy Statement 9 – Biodiversity and Geological Page 95

Conservation (2005) and the associated Government Circular (ODPM) 06/2005 and Good Practice Guide of the same dates.

Proposals which are likely to affect – directly or indirectly – International, National and Local Designated Sites as specified in the above guidance will be required to provide a Biodiversity Survey. If an Environment Statement (See L5) is required, then the Biodiversity Survey can be incorporated into this document.

Similarly, if the proposal is likely to potentially affect any habitat or species protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 ; the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) ; or the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 , then a Biodiversity Survey will also be required.

Further Information regarding Protected Habitats and Species is contained within Government Circular 06/2005, which is available at: www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/circularbio diversity

Further advice is available via www.naturalengland.org.uk

The Biodiversity Survey must be undertaken by a suitably qualified person and be undertaken at appropriate times and months of the year, in suitable weather conditions and using recognised surveying techniques. The level of detail should be commensurate with the proposal and the potential impacts. It must include an assessment of the likely effects of development upon habitats and species recorded on the site or in the locality, and identify measures to be taken to avoid impacting upon the biodiversity of the site/locality both during construction and afterwards. Where effects cannot be reduced further, the Survey shall state what compensation measures are proposed to offset the harm caused by the development. These are likely to include new opportunities for habitat creation/enhancement.

The City Council has stipulated that the Biodiversity Survey must contain a Bat Survey where the development would:

• Involve any disturbance to an existing roof structure (by extension, alteration, demolition or replacement) within 100m of freshwater or of woodland; or,

• Involve the conversion or other disturbance (listed above) to an existing barn, farmhouse, stable building or church, regardless of location.

The Bat Conservation Trust document ‘Bat Surveys – Good Practice Page 96

Guidelines; is available at www.bats.org.uk .

The City Council has also stipulated that the Biodiversity Survey must contain a Great Crested Newts Survey where the development involves operational development within 250m of a pond/lake.

Under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC, the City Council has a responsibility to undertake an Appropriate Assessment where potential development could affect the integrity of Designated European Sites (otherwise known as Natura 2000 sites). The City Council works with Natural England in this regard. However applicants and developers may be contacted to assist in providing further information regarding their development proposals.

L7. Sustainability Statement

Planning Policy Statement 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development (2005) and the supplementary document – Planning and Climate Change (December 2007) provide national principles and objectives relating to environmental, economic and social sustainability. Lancaster District Core Strategy Policy SC1 also requires all new development proposals to be as sustainable as possible, to minimise greenhouse gas emissions and to be adaptable to the effects of climate change.

Where the proposed development involves new-build residential accommodation, the Sustainability Statement (SS) should identify the Code for Sustainable Homes rating that the development will aim to achieve as a minimum.

The Code for Sustainable Homes is the national standard for the sustainable design for the provision of residential accommodation. The Code aims to reduce carbon emissions and create homes that are more sustainable. It measures the sustainability of a new home against categories of sustainable design, rating the ‘whole home’ as a complete package. The Code uses a 1 to 6 star rating system to indicate the overall sustainability performance of a new home.

At the time of compiling this Guide (December 2010), the Code Rating required by the City Council is Code Level 3 as a minimum. Further information on the Code for Sustainable Home is available via: http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/code_for_sust_homes.pdf

For all development proposals involving new buildings (irrespective of the proposed use), the SS should indicate what the energy efficiency strategy for the building(s) will be, including what, if any, renewable energy measures are proposed to generate on-site renewable energy.

Page 97

The SS can be incorporated into the Design and Access Statement, under appropriate headings.

L8. Arboricultural Implications Assessment

Government Circular 06/05 – Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System (August 2005) states that local planning authorities have a duty to consider the protection or planting of trees.

In seeking to consider this issue in relation to planning applications, an Arboricultural Implications Assessment (AIA) is required for proposals on sites where trees are present and which could be affected by the proposal, or where trees outside the site could be affected (e.g. such as street trees) and the application proposes:

• All new buildings; or, • Applications involving the change of use of land where operational development is also proposed.

BS 5837:2005 – ‘Trees in Relation to Construction – Recommendations (2005) provides the national standard regarding development proposals affecting or located close to trees and hedges. To comply with the standard, only a qualified/suitably experience arboriculturist can submit an AIA.

The AIA should specify all works proposed, including any site preparation works, earthworks, surfacing, trees/hedges to be retained and those to be removed or reduced in scale (whether within or affecting the application site). The AIA must contain a Tree Survey, a Method Statement, a Tree Constraints Plan and a Tree Protection Plan. Any new or compensatory planting must be shown on the proposed plan.

Planning Policy Statement 9 – Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (2005) states the importance of building-in beneficial biodiversity features, such as new landscaping and habitat, and all proposals should seek to maximise such opportunities.

L9. Transport Assessment and Travel Plan

Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (PPG 13) – Transport (March 2001) provides the national policy context for managing travel demand.

However, matters such as car parking for non-residential development have been superseded by national advice contained within Planning Policy Statement 4 (PPS 4) – Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth (2009) . Policies EC8 and EC18 are particularly relevant. Page 98

The North West Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) includes parking standards for new development. At the time of compiling this guide (December 2010) the RSS has been reinstated nationally as part of the Development Plan. The Government has indicated however that legislation will soon be brought forward to abolish the RSS.

Therefore, parking provision should comply with RSS standards. Once the RSS is abolished, applicants are advised to contact the Planning Officer to discuss parking standards.

Lancaster District Core Strategy Policy E2 also stipulates how development proposals should minimise transport and environmental impacts.

Transport Assessments and Travel Plans should be submitted for the following categories of development (the thresholds are adopted from PPG13):

• Proposals that result in new or extended gross floorspace of 1000 square metres of A1 (retail) use;

• Proposals that result in new or extended gross floorspace of 2500 square metres of B1 (business) use;

• Proposals that result in new or extended gross floorspace of 1000 square metres of D2 (assembly and leisure) use, excluding stadia;

• Proposals that result in new or extended stadia amounting to greater than 1500 seats;

• Proposals that result in new or extended floorspace of 2500 square metres of higher/further education facilitites;

• Any other proposals that will incorporate a mix of uses or will have significant, local transport implications (as advised by the Planning Officer)

Travel Plans should seek to reduce reliance upon the most environmentally damaging modes of transport and promote journeys by foot, bicycle and public transportation.

Where development does not meet any of the thresholds above, but may have impacts upon the highway network or raise highway safety matters, applicants will be expected to compile a short Transport Statement to explain how their proposals address the issue(s).

Page 99

L10. Affordable Housing Statement

Planning Policy Statement 3 – Housing (June 2010) and the Government Policy Statement Delivering Affordable Housing (November 2006) set out the basis from which the Council negotiates affordable housing in new development. Policy SC4 of the Lancaster District Core Strategy seeks to redress imbalances in the local housing market; achieve housing that genuinely addresses identified local housing need; and secure units of ‘in-perpetuity’ affordable housing.

Affordability is a significant and continuing concern for the local community as evidenced in the Lancaster District Housing Needs Study (2007 update) , and the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2008) .

All applications for residential development must be accompanied by an Affordable Housing Statement (AHS). The AHS should demonstrate how the proposed scheme has been assessed against the current affordable housing policy, which is set out in the latest City Council Affordable Housing Practice Note (available from 1 January 2011 at www.lancaster.gov.uk ). The AHS should also demonstrate how the proposed development addresses the housing needs of the specific area. To demonstrate this it should contain:

• Details of the number of units; • Details of the overall tenure mix; • Details of the affordable mix (social/intermediate); • Details of the unit types (size, number of habitable rooms and bedrooms).

If different levels or types of affordability or tenure are proposed for different units this should be clearly and fully explained. The AHS should also include details of any registered social providers acting as partners in the development.

The evidence base relating to the housing needs of the District will be available online from 1 st January 2011.

L11. Flood Risk Assessment

Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25 – Development and Flood Risk (March 2010) requires a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) for all development proposals of 1 hectare or greater in Flood Zone 1, and for any proposals for new development in Flood Zones 2 and 3 as designated by the Environment Agency ( with the exception of house extensions and minor domestic curtilage buildings ). A FRA may also be required in any Environment Agency-designated ‘Critical Drainage Areas’.

Page 100

Lancaster District Core Strategy Policy SC7 requires development proposals to be assessed in line with PPS25. A FRA should demonstrate how flood risk from all sources of flooding to the development will be managed, and how climate change has been considered. For major developments (e.g. 10 or more residential units, or non-residential development of 1000 sq.m or more) in Flood Zone 1, the FRA should identify opportunities to reduce the probability and consequences of flooding. It should also include the design of surface water management systems, including where appropriate Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (as required by Policy SC1 of the Core Strategy ).

Lancaster District Core Strategy Policy E1 directs that in areas where flooding cannot be properly managed, development should be resisted.

If an Environment Statement (see paragraph L5) is also required, then the FRA may be incorporated into that.

L12. Land Contamination Assessment

Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 23 – Planning and Pollution Control (2004) sets out the Government’s policies on land affected by contamination. Land contamination is a material consideration in taking decisions on planning applications. PPS23 states that it is the responsibility of the landowner/developer to identify land affected by contamination and to ensure that remediation is undertaken to ensure a safe environment.

Annex 2 to PPS23 – Development on Land Affected by Contamination states what is required in dealing with contaminated land issues. It states that pre-application discussions should be held prior to submitting planning applications. The discussion should aim to scope the level of assessment that will be required. Where this involves non-major development, these discussions should be held directly with the City Council’s Environmental Health Service. Where it involves major development (e.g. 10 or more residential units, or non-residential development of 1000 sq.m or more), the discussion should also include Planning Officers.

A Land Contamination Assessment (LCA) will usually be required for proposals where:

• The development site is potentially contaminated by existing of former uses or activities, including waste dumping;

• Land outside the development site has been potentially contaminated and could potentially impact upon the Page 101

development site (e.g. through migrating contaminants such as fuel oils or landfill gases); or

• The development site is located within 250m of any possible landfill site.

As PPS23 Annex 2 advises, all LCAs should be carried out by, or under the direction of a suitably qualified person and should be in accordance with BS10175 – Code of Practice for the Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites (2001). Lancaster District Core Strategy Policies SC1 and E1 requires development proposals to remediate contamination and any associated environmental problems.

If an Environment Statement (see para L5) is required, then the LCA may be incorporated into that.

L13. Air Quality Assessment

Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 23 – Planning and Pollution Control (2004) sets out the Government’s policies on air quality. It is supported by Annex 1 – Pollution Control, Air and Water Quality .

The existing and future air quality in an area, including in an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) is a material planning consideration.

An Air Quality Assessment (AQA) will be required for proposals where:

• The development site is within or adjacent to a designated AQMA;

• The development proposal itself could result in the designation of an AQMA; or,

• The grant of planning permission would potentially conflict with, or render unworkable, elements of the City Council’s Air Quality Action Plan.

The AQA should contain information that will allow a full consideration of the impact of the proposal on the air quality of the area. Lancaster District Core Strategy Policy E1 requires development proposals to remediate contamination and any associated environmental problems.

If an Environment Statement (see para L5) is required, then the Air Quality Assessment may be incorporated into that. For details of AQMA designations, applicants are advised to contact the authority’s Environmental Health Service.

Page 102

L14. Noise & Vibration Assessment

Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 24 – Planning and Noise (October 1994) sets out the Government’s policies in relation to both noisy development and noise-sensitive development. Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 23 – Planning and Pollution Control (2004) discusses vibration amongst a series of potential amenity impacts.

A Noise & Vibration Assessment (NVA) will be required where:

• The proposal has the potential to raise issues of disturbance by noise, either due to the proposed introduction of housing in a potentially noisy location or due to a potentially noisy activity being introduced in a residential area;

• Proposals are demonstrably noisy by nature (e.g. proposals that would involve heavy industry); or,

• Where the transmission of vibration may be a significant adverse impact.

All NVAs should be carried out by, or under the direction of a suitably qualified person and should be in accordance with BS7445:2003 – Description and Measurement of Environmental Noise, etc (December 2003) and all other statutory instruments and British Standards listed in Annex 8 of PPG24.

Lancaster District Core Strategy Policy E1 directs that development proposals should be resisted where they have a detrimental effect upon public amenity.

L15. Ventilation/Extraction Statement

Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 23 – Planning and Pollution Control (2004) recognises matters such as fumes and odour as material planning considerations. It also advises that these matters may be seriously detrimental to amenity as well as potentially causing a statutory nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

A Ventilation & Extraction Assessment (VEA) will be required where the proposal involves:

• An A3 class use (restaurants, cafeterias, etc); • An A4 class use (drinking establishments); • An A5 class use (hot food takeaways); Page 103

• Other uses that may require ventilation and extraction, such as launderettes, general business uses and general industrial uses).

The VEA shall provide information on the position and design of the equipment proposed, including technical details of odour abatement techniques and acoustic noise characteristics. The VEA may be incorporated into the Design and Access Statement, where one is required.

L16. Utility Statement

Government Circular 03/99 - Planning Requirements in respect of the Use of Non-Mains Sewerage incorporating Septic Tanks in New Development (1999) provides advice on the exercise of planning controls on non- mains sewerage and associated sewage disposal aspects of development. Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 23 – Planning and Pollution Control (2004) also states that provisions for surface water and sewerage disposal are material planning considerations.

There is a two-tiered approach to the City Council’s local requirements regarding Utility Statements (US).

For all new buildings (commercial and residential, but not extensions to existing buildings) and for any change of use applications that involve buildings which don’t currently have services, the US should provide details of the existing and proposed foul and surface water drainage arrangements. Where connection to a mains sewer is not practical, the onus is on the applicant/developer to demonstrate why and indicate an alternative, satisfactory means of disposal.

Where the proposed development involves major development (10 or more dwellings or over 1000 square metres of non-residential floorspace), then the US should also confirm that the development will not result in any undue pressure on the delivery of all other utility services. Applicants will be mindful of Environment Agency advice regarding Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) which is available at: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/sectors/37013.aspx

Any site constraints (e.g. easements) should be included within the US. The US may be incorporated into the Design and Access Statement, where one is required.

L17. Town Centre (Uses) Assessment

Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 4 – Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth (2009) identifies uses to which national town centre policies apply. These include retail uses, leisure/sport and recreation, Page 104

entertainment uses, offices, and arts/tourism and culture.

Policies EC14, EC15 and EC 16 of PPS4 require assessments to be made against a number of impact considerations and advises how these assessments will be considered. For the purposes of submissions to the City Council, these assessments shall be included in a single Town Centre Assessment (TCA).

A TCA is required for applications for main town centre uses not located in existing centres and are not in accordance with the development plan. This shall include a demonstration of sequential site assessment, (except where the proposal is an extension of an existing use where the extension measures less than 200 square metres) and an impact assessment.

A TCA, including the impact assessment, is also required for applications that are located in existing centres but are not in accordance with the development plan and which would substantially increase the attraction of the centre to an extent that the proposal could have an impact upon other centres.

Impact assessments should focus in particular upon the first 5 years after the implementation of a proposal and the level of detail and evidence shall be commensurate with the scale and nature of the proposal. The assessment should also consider investment in the centre(s); town centre vitality and viability, including consumer choice; allocated sites outside centres that are being developed in accordance with the development plan; in-centre trade and turnover, taking account of expenditure capacity; whether the proposal is of an appropriate scale; and any other locally-important impacts upon the centre(s).

The TCA should also consider the five separate impact considerations listed in Policy EC10 of PPS4 .

The town centres within the City Council’s boundaries are detailed in Lancaster District Core Strategy Policy ER4 . Core Strategy Policies ER5 and ER6 considers new retail development and tourism. Regeneration Priority Areas and Employment Land Allocations are contained within Core Strategy Policies ER2 and ER3 .

L18. Coal Mining Risk Assessment

Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 14 – Development on Unstable Land (1990) requires all parties to recognise the risks caused by ground subsidence, including that caused by previous mining activity.

A Coal Mining Risk Assessment (CMRA) is required for all non- Page 105

householder applications that fall within the Coal Mining Development Referral Areas defined by The Coal Authority, and held by the City Council. These referral areas are areas of former coal mining activity, and lie within the parishes of Caton-with-Littledale, Claughton, Gressingham, Halton-with-Aughton, Hornby-with-Farleton, Over Wyresdale, Quernmore, Roeburndale, Tatham and Wray-with-Botton. To determine if a CMRA is required a site location plan with grid references is necessary and should be sent to the email address provided on the final page of this Guide.

The CMRA should contain:

• Site-specific coal mining information;

• An identification of what risks, including cumulative effects, are posed by coal mining issues;

• An identification of how coal mining issues have influenced the proposed development and whether other mitigation measures are required to manage those issues or whether the proposal has changed as a result of the coal mining issues; and,

• The prior written permission of The Coal Authority where the development would involve intrusive activities which intersect, disturb or enter any coal seam, coal mine workings or mine entries.

All CMRAs should be carried out by a suitably qualified person as defined by PPG14.

L19. Open Space Assessment

Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 17 – Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation (July 2002) provides national objectives with regard to maintaining an adequate supply of open space, sport and recreation facilitites, and remedying any deficiencies in provision.

An Open Space Assessment (OSA) is required for any proposals on part or all of:

• Any sports ground, park, play facility or allotment; • Any informal recreation/leisure area (including walking and cycling routes); • Any other green space network or open space; or, • Any burial ground.

The OSA should illustrate, with the assistance of the submitted plans, the location, size, and type of open space in question. Page 106

Lancaster District Core Strategy Policy SC8 seeks to protect existing green spaces and sports facilitites, and requires new residential development to make appropriate provision for both formal and informal facilitites.

L20. Structural Survey

A Structural Survey (SS) is necessary in the following circumstances:

• Where development involves substantial demolition or reconstruction;

• Where development proposals involve the conversion of redundant buildings;

• Where development involves potentially unstable land, structures or buildings (as required by Planning Policy Guidance 14 – Development on Unstable Land – 1990 )

The SS should be carried out by suitably competent, experienced person. The SS should correspond with the submitted plans and any areas subject to demolition or reconstruction should be clearly stated. There should be an assessment of the structural stability of the site/buildings, and a justification for the work being proposed.

Where the SS relates to a Listed Building, Scheduled Monument, a building in a Conservation Area, or a Registered Park/Garden, then attention is drawn to paragraph L4 of this Guide.

L21. Telecommunications Information

Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) Note 8 – Telecommunications (August 2001) provides the Government’s national advice regarding all forms of telecommunication development.

Annex 1 of PPG8 contains a full list of requirements to support all telecommunication applications. These include evidence regarding mast or site-sharing; information relating to the need for the development; evidence that any affected nearby nursery, school or college has been consulted prior to submission; a statement that the proposal will meet the ICNIRP guidelines; and a statement indicating the height, frequency/modulation characteristics and details of power output.

The Government’s Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Network Development (November 2002) provides clear, practical advice to Page 107

ensure effective communication and consultation between operators, local authorities and local people.

L22. Planning Obligations Agreement – Draft Heads of Terms

Government Circular 05/05 – Planning Obligations (2005) provides guidance to the use of planning obligations under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Further national guidance is provided in the Government’s Planning Obligations – Practice Guidance (2006) .

Planning obligations are agreements negotiated between the local planning authority and applicants/developers. They are intended to make development acceptable where it would otherwise be unacceptable in planning terms.

A copy of Draft Heads of Terms will be required to accompany all planning applications where it has been agreed at the pre-application stage that a Section 106 Agreement is necessary. Previous discussions with the City Council’s Planning Contributions Officer must take place before submission of the application.

The Development Costs Appraisal - referred to in paragraph L3 of this Guide - may be required to support the Draft Heads of Terms.

A national Section 106 Agreement template is provided at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/doc/ 151720.doc

L23. Planning Performance Agreement

A Planning Performance Agreement is a framework entered into by the City Council’s local planning authority, the planning applicant and any other key stakeholders (e.g. statutory consultees). It allows the local planning authority and the applicant to agree a Project Plan and Programme for the determination of the planning application. The Planning Performance Agreement has no bearing upon the eventual outcome of the planning application, but merely establishes the framework and timescale of pre-application, submission of application, determination of application and (if approved) the discharge of planning conditions.

A copy of the Planning Performance Agreement must accompany the planning application where one has been entered into and signed by Page 108

the relevant parties.

Application Checklist

The following pages include an ‘at-a-glance’ checklist to assist in compiling all the necessary information requirements.

The range of supporting documents will vary in each case. The corresponding paragraphs in this document provide detailed information as to whether a particular supporting document is necessary or not. Applications that are submitted without the necessary range of documents cannot be validated.

Page 109

Key to Table (Overleaf)

N1 The Planning Application Form N2 Ownership Certificates and Notice N3 Agricultural Land Certificate and Declaration N4 The Location Plan N5 The Site Plan N6 Elevation Plans, floor Plans and Sectional Plans N7 The Correct Fee N8 The Design and Access Statement

L1 Additional Plans, Photographs and Photomontages L2 Statement of Community Involvement L3 Supporting Planning Statement (including if necessary a Development Costs/Marketing Appraisal) L4 Heritage Statement L5 Environmental Statement L6 Biodiversity Survey L7 Sustainability Statement L8 Arboricultural Implications Assessment L9 Transport Assessment and Travel Plan L10 Affordable Housing Statement L11 Flood Risk Assessment L12 Land Contamination Assessment L13 Air Quality Assessment L14 Noise and Vibration Assessment L15 Ventilation/Extraction Statement L16 Utilities Statement L17 Town Centre (Uses) Assessment L18 Coal Mining Risk Assessment L19 Open Space Assessment L20 Structural Survey L21 Telecommunications Information L22 Planning Obligations Agreement – Draft Heads of Terms L23 Planning Performance Agreement Documents N1 N8 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18 L19 L20 L21 L22 L23 Which May Be to Required → N7 Householder • • • • • Application Householder in a • • • • • • • Conservation Area Householder in or affecting Listed • • • • • • • Building Full Application • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Full Application –

Change of use with • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Page 110 No Building Works Full + in a • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Conservation Area Full + in or affecting • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • a Listed Building Outline Application • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Reserved Matters • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Conservation Area • • • • • • • • Consent Listed Building • • • • • • • • Consent Advertisement • • • Consent Lawful Development Certificate (LDC) for • an Existing Use/Operation Documents N1 N8 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17 L18 L19 L20 L21 L22 L23 Which May Be to Required → N7 LDC for a Proposed • Use/Operation Prior Notification – Agricultural • Development Prior Notification - • • Telecommunications Prior Notification - • • • Demolition Tree Works (TPO or Conservation Area • • • Trees) Hedgerow Removal Page 111 • • •

Renewal of Planning Amended or new documents may be required if circumstances or policy background has changed since last • Permission consent Vary or Remove Amended or new documents may be required if the condition to be varied/removed alters materially alters the •* Condition development as previously approved (e.g. transport impact) Discharge Condition Only the information required by the condition being discharged is necessary to accompany the application/fee • etc Minor Non-Material • • Amendments

* - In respect of applications to vary or discharge a planning condition, plans are not usually required and the application shall consist of the application form and application fee. However the removal or variation of some conditions can have an impact upon certain matters (e.g. transport impact, environmental impact) and so applicants are advised to discuss the matter with the Planning Officer to ascertain whether further statements may be necessary to support your application. Page 112

Useful Contacts and Information

N8. Design and Access Statement Places Matter! – Design Review Panel (0151 703 0135 or [email protected] )

L4. Heritage Statement Lancashire County Council – Historic Environment Record Ken Davies (01772 531513 or [email protected] )

L8. Arboricultural Implications Assessment Lancaster City Council – Development Management – Tree Protection Officer Maxine Knagg (01524 582384 or [email protected] )

L10. Affordable Housing Statement Lancaster City Council – Policy & Delivery – Housing Strategy Officer Kathy Sinclair (01524 582724 or [email protected]

L11. Flood Risk Assessment Environment Agency – North West (Central) Area Office (08708 506506)

L12. Land Contamination Assessment Lancaster City Council – Health & Strategic Housing – Contaminated Land Officer Mark Edwards (01524 582741 or [email protected] )

L13. Air Quality Assessment Lancaster City Council – Health & Strategic Housing – Environmental Protection Manager Nick Howard (01524 582734 or [email protected] )

L14. Noise & Vibration Assessment Lancaster City Council – Health & Strategic Housing – Environmental Protection District Team Leader Martin Brownjohn (01524 582746 or [email protected] )

L18. Coal Mining Risk Assessment (For Coal Mining Referral Areas - 01524 582950 or [email protected] ) (For Other Related Enquiries) 01623 637119 or [email protected] )

L19. Open Spaces Assessment Sport England ([email protected] ) Page 113

L22. Planning Obligations Agreement - Draft Heads of Terms Lancaster City Council – Development Management – Planning Contributions Officer Brian Sheasby (01524 582384 or [email protected] ) Agenda Item 19 Page 114 LIST OF DELEGATED PLANNING DECISIONS

LANCASTER CITY COUNCIL

APPLICATION NO DETAILS DECISION

09/01152/CU Lane House Farm, Main Road, Galgate Change of use Application Permitted and conversion of barn into two dwellings and outbuildings into ancillary garages / hobby rooms / outbuildings and change of use of agricultural land to form domestic gardens for Messrs Haston (Ellel Ward)

09/01153/LB Lane House Farm, Main Road, Galgate Listed Building Application Permitted Consent for Change of use and Conversion of barn into two dwellings and outbuildings into ancillary garages / hobby rooms / outbuildings and change of use of agricultural land to form domestic gardens for Messrs Haston (Ellel Ward)

10/00229/CU The Coach House, Main Road, Burrow Change of use of Application Refused workshop to create a dwelling with associated parking for Mr P Birchall (Upper Lune Valley Ward)

10/00429/FUL The Flat, 304 Oxcliffe Road, Heaton With Oxcliffe Application Refused Internal alterations to existing garage and flat above to include five dormer windows to the front elevation and installation of various windows for Mr & Mrs T Hill ( Ward)

10/00491/CU Land Adjacent To, 12 - 14 Heysham Road, Heysham Application Permitted Change of Use from B8 storage to D1 Community meeting place and alterations for Mr Michael Kohl (Heysham North Ward)

10/00620/OUT Orchard View, Cove Lane, Silverdale Outline application Application Permitted for the erection of 2 semi-detached dwellings and a private drainage plant for Mr Michael Holgate (Silverdale Ward)

10/00638/FUL 6-8 Lancaster Gate, Lancaster, Lancashire Replacement Application Permitted of existing shopfronts for Mr David McDonagh (Dukes Ward)

10/00639/ADV 6 And 8 Lancaster Gate, Lancaster, Lancashire Application Permitted Installation of 2 internally illuminated main fascia signs and 1 internally illuminated projecting sign for Mr David McDonagh (Dukes Ward)

10/00651/FUL Forgewood House, Wennington Road, Wennington Application Permitted Erection of an agricultural building for Mr Tony Metcalfe (Upper Lune Valley Ward)

10/00672/CU St Marys, Main Road, Bolton Le Sands Change of use of Application Permitted land to provide an extension to the existing cemetery for Canon John Xavier Gibson (Bolton Le Sands Ward)

10/00692/FUL Rose Cottage, Kirkby Lonsdale Road, Arkholme Application Permitted Extension and alterations (resubmission of expired approval 06/00965/FUL) for Mr N Charlesworth (Kellet Ward)

10/00726/LB Castle Hotel, 49 Main Street, Hornby Amendment to Application Permitted Page 115 LIST OF DELEGATED PLANNING DECISIONS Listed Building consent 07/01521/LB to amend the Internal layout for Mr Mike Henry (Upper Lune Valley Ward)

10/00761/FUL Tenlands, Lowgill Lane, Lowgill Erection of a part Application Refused domestic/part small-holding outbuilding for Mr And Mrs Usher (Lower Lune Valley Ward)

10/00765/FUL WCF Fuels, Warton Road, Carnforth Erection of a two Application Permitted storey extension to existing office accommodation, re- cladding of existing office to match proposed extension and replacement windows to existing office for WCF Fuels North West (Carnforth Ward)

10/00793/FUL Sunnybank Farm, Mill Lane, Bolton Le Sands Application Permitted Conversion of outbuildings to kitchen for Mr G. Little (Bolton Le Sands Ward)

10/00813/AD Land Adjacent Troulsmire Barn, Higher Hollinhead, Prior Approval Refused Quernmore Road Erection of an agricultural building for Mr Sam Hey (Lower Lune Valley Ward)

10/00819/AD Land Adjacent Troulsmire Barn, Higher Hollinhead, Prior Approval Refused Quernmore Road Excavation works to provide level base for agricultural building for Mr Sam Hey (Lower Lune Valley Ward)

10/00832/ADV 13 - 15 Chapel Street, Lancaster, Lancashire Installation Application Permitted of 3 externally illuminated fascia signs and 1 non- illuminated projection sign for Co-operative Group Ltd (Bulk Ward)

10/00841/FUL Tarn House, Bailrigg Lane, Lancaster Erection of a Application Refused conservatory to the side for Mr A Ducie (Ellel Ward)

10/00855/FUL 67 Winchester Avenue, Lancaster, Lancashire Erection Application Withdrawn of a first floor extension over an existing attached garage and erection of front porch for Dr Y Seth (John O'Gaunt Ward)

10/00865/FUL 54 Market Street, Lancaster, Lancashire Replacement of Application Permitted roof covering to rear outrigger and associated repair works for Mr M Elliott (Dukes Ward)

10/00872/LB 54 Market Street, Lancaster, Lancashire Listed Building Application Permitted consent for replacement of roof covering to rear outrigger and associated repair works for Mr Martin Elliot (Dukes Ward)

10/00877/FUL 4 Broadacre View, Caton, Lancaster Alterations to raise Application Permitted the roof, erection of a single storey extension to rear and new porch to front for Mr Michael Smith (Lower Lune Valley Ward)

10/00895/FUL Verandah Cottage, Burrow Road, Burrow Erection of a Application Refused replacement porch to front for Dr P Thomas (Upper Lune Valley Ward)

10/00901/FUL Temple Cottage, Burrow Road, Burrow Various Application Permitted alterations and extensions including two storey extension to the west and south elevation for Mrs K Livesey (Upper Lune Valley Ward)

10/00912/FUL Conder Cottage, Corricks Lane, Conder Green Application Permitted Page 116 LIST OF DELEGATED PLANNING DECISIONS Amendment for enlargements to kitchen on approved application 09/01009/FUL for erection of a replacement 4 bed dwelling for Mr R Grayston (Ellel Ward)

10/00917/CU Skerton Hotel, 2 Owen Road, Lancaster Conversion of Application Permitted vacant first floor rooms into a caretaker's flat for Mr And Mrs R Whitehead (Skerton East Ward)

10/00925/NMA Breckanfield, Brettargh Drive, Lancaster Amendments to Application Permitted approved application 09/00768/FUL for Mr M Woodhouse (Scotforth West Ward)

10/00940/FUL Unit 16, Galgate Mill, Chapel Lane Retrospective Application Permitted application for the installation of external flue for Mrs S Patel (Ellel Ward)

10/00943/PLDC 7 Well Lane, Warton, Carnforth Erection of a Lawful Development conservatory to the rear for Mr David Topping (Warton Certificate Granted Ward)

10/00946/FUL High House Farm, Hutton Roof Road, Whittington Application Permitted Erection of an agricultural building for Mr William Sedgley (Upper Lune Valley Ward)

10/00947/FUL Luneville, 86 White Lund Road, Morecambe Alterations Application Permitted to roof for Mr A Burke (Westgate Ward)

10/00956/FUL 2 The Drive, Heysham, Morecambe Erection of a single Application Permitted storey extension to the rear and construction of dormer windows to the front and rear for Mr Tom Mather (Heysham South Ward)

10/00963/FUL North Of Farr Bank, Uggle Lane, Lancaster Erection of a Application Permitted new two storey 4 bed dwelling with attached workshop and double garage for Mr Lawson J Spedding (Scotforth West Ward)

10/00964/OUT Land To The Rear Of Lawsons Close, Uggle Lane, Application Withdrawn Lancaster Outline application for the erection of a new dwelling for Mr Lawson Spedding (Scotforth West Ward)

10/00959/FUL 69 Hest Bank Lane, Hest Bank, Lancaster Erection of Application Permitted single storey rear extension for Mr & Mrs Dennis Pratt (Slyne With Hest Ward)

10/00961/FUL Herst Cottage, Fall Kirk, Gressingham Erection of a Application Permitted single storey extension to the rear for Ms Lynne Rowling (Upper Lune Valley Ward)

10/00971/FUL 26 Fairhope Avenue, Morecambe, Lancashire Erection Application Permitted of a conservatory to the rear for Mr And Mrs D Brown (Torrisholme Ward)

10/00977/RENT Kendal Hill Farm, Kendal Hill, Dobs Lane Renewal of Application Permitted Planning app 05/00575/CU for change of use of land to site mobile home for holiday occupancy. for Mrs Virginia Charnley (Ellel Ward)

10/00978/FUL 46 Carleton Street, Morecambe, Lancashire Erection of Application Permitted new dwelling on land adjacent for Mr Fred Butterworth (Harbour Ward)

10/00981/FUL Hazelrigg Weather Station, Lancaster University, Application Permitted Hazelrigg Lane Creation of a fenced compound, Page 117 LIST OF DELEGATED PLANNING DECISIONS mesocosm tanks and erection of a timber office building to facilitate field study area for Mr Roger Merritt (University Ward)

10/00988/FUL 1 Wilson Grove, Heysham, Morecambe Erection of a Application Permitted single storey rear extension and pitched roof over garage for Mr Tony Rackham (Heysham South Ward)

10/00989/FUL Carnforth Compressor Station, Dunald Mill Lane, Nether Application Permitted Kellet Erection of a steel frame over the existing switchgear for National Grid Plc (Kellet Ward)

10/00993/FUL 3 Lawnswood Drive, Morecambe, Lancashire Erection of Application Refused a conservatory to side for E M Power H A (Westgate Ward)

10/01004/FUL 1 Church View, Melling Road, Melling Installation of Application Permitted velux rooflight to the rear for Mrs Lorraine Grundy (Upper Lune Valley Ward)

10/01005/LB 1 Church View, Melling Road, Melling Listed building Application Permitted application for the installation of a velux roof window to rear for Mrs Lorraine Grundy (Upper Lune Valley Ward)

10/01008/FUL 27 Crag Bank Road, Carnforth, Lancashire Erection of a Application Permitted two storey side extension and a single storey extension and a raised patio with access to garden to the rear. for Mrs Lindsey Walker (Bolton Le Sands Ward)

10/01013/FUL Staple Oak, Whams Lane, Bay Horse Erection of a Application Withdrawn single storey sun lounge extension to the rear for Mr Brian Dearden (Ellel Ward)

10/01018/FUL John Wilding Car Dealership, Middlegate, White Lund Application Permitted Estate Proposed re-cladding of existing building. for Mr A. Wilding (Westgate Ward)

10/01024/FUL Nether Gayle, Woodman Lane, Cowan Bridge Various Application Permitted alterations and extensions including raising of the roof for Mr M Minnitt (Upper Lune Valley Ward)

10/01028/FUL Lancaster Saw Mills, Thetis Road, Lune Business Park Application Withdrawn Erection of an extension to link existing industrial units for Mr Andrew Clokey (Castle Ward)

10/01030/FUL Carus House, Kellet Lane, Slyne Erection of a single Application Permitted storey extension for Mr And Mrs Banks-Lyon (Halton With Aughton Ward)

10/01045/FUL 59 Sand Lane, Warton, Carnforth Erection of a single Application Permitted storey extension to rear for Mr And Mrs G Hutchings (Warton Ward)

10/01032/LB Tarn House, Bailrigg Lane, Lancaster Listed building Application Refused application for the erection of a conservatory to the side for Mr A Ducie (Ellel Ward)

10/01046/FUL 46 Garfield Avenue, Lancaster, Lancashire Erection of a Application Permitted single storey extension to the rear for Mr And Mrs Peasnell (Castle Ward)

10/01048/FUL 16 Schoolhouse Lane, Halton, Lancaster Erection of a Application Permitted conservatory to the rear for Stephen Taylor (Halton With Aughton Ward) Page 118 LIST OF DELEGATED PLANNING DECISIONS

10/01052/FUL Barn Cottage, The Green, Silverdale Erection of a timber Application Permitted storage building for Dr Olly Keith (Silverdale Ward)

10/01049/FUL 2 Westover Grove, Warton, Carnforth Installation of Application Permitted velux windows for Mr & Mrs Bamforth (Warton Ward)

10/01056/FUL 138 High Road, Halton, Lancaster Demolition of existing Application Permitted garage and erection of a single storey side extension to form car port/utility room and dormers to front and rear for Mr I Ferguson (Halton With Aughton Ward)

10/01060/CU 9 Common Garden Street, Lancaster, Lancashire Application Permitted Change of use of vacant A1 retail premises to A5 hot food takeaway for Mr Suleman Ismailjee (Dukes Ward)

10/01062/FUL Guys Farm Outdoor Centre, Gleaves Hill Lane, Ellel Application Permitted Erection of entrance porch to 'house' accommodation block for Mr Paul Ross (Ellel Ward)

10/01063/FUL 60 Canterbury Avenue, Lancaster, Lancashire Erection Application Permitted of a two storey extension to side with alterations to and conversion of garage to living accommodation for Mr & Mrs P. Butler (John O'Gaunt Ward)

10/01083/FUL 2 Lynden Avenue, Morecambe, Lancashire Erection of Application Permitted single storey extension to the rear and erection new outbuilding attached to existing garage for Mr David Jowett (Torrisholme Ward)

10/01084/FUL 80 Buckingham Road, Morecambe, Lancashire Erection Application Permitted of a pitched roof to replace existing flat roof for Mr J. Light (Heysham North Ward)

10/00082/DIS Near Moss Farm, Gulf Lane, Cockerham Discharge of Request Completed conditions 6 and 8 on approved application 10/0573/CU for Messrs E And H Threlfall (Ellel Ward)

10/00087/DIS 4 Bailey Lane, Heysham, Morecambe Discharge of all Request Completed conditions on approved application 10/00640/FUL for Mr And Mrs Lyons (Heysham South Ward)

10/00092/DIS 1 Fell View, Todgill Road, Ireby Discharge of condition 4 Request Completed on application 10/00914/FUL for Mr And Mrs Ireland (Upper Lune Valley Ward)